Research Note—A Dynamic View of the Impact of Network Structure on Technology Adoption: The Case of OSS Development

References

• Adler PS, Kwon S (2002) Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Acad. Management Rev. 27(1):17–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Tanniru M, Wilemon D (1997) Assimilating information technology innovations: Strategies and moderating influences. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 44(4):347–358.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balkundi P, Harrison D (2006) Ties, leaders, and time in teams: Strong inference about network structures effect on team viability and performance. Acad. Management J. 49(1):49–68.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boh WF, Slaughter SA, Espinosa JA (2007) Learning from experience in software development: A multilevel analysis. Management Sci. 53(8):1315–1331.Link, Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Foster PC (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. J. Management 29(6):991–1013.Google Scholar
• Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G (2009) Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323(5916):892–895.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown S, Venkatesh V (2005) Model of adoption and technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quart. 29(3):399–436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (1992) Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard University Press, Boston).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burt RS (2005) Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford University Press, Oxford, NY).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Capaldo A (2007) Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management J. 28(6):585–608.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Amer. J. Sociol. 94(Supplement):S95–S120.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins-Sussman B, Fitzpatrick BW, Pilato CM (2011) Version Control with Subversion. Accessed on April 29, 2012. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn-book.pdf.Google Scholar
• Cross R, Cummings JN (2004) Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Acad. Management J. 47(6):928–937.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR (1989) User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Sci. 35(8):982–1003.Link, Google Scholar
• Dey D, Fan M, Peng G (2011) Computer use and wage returns: The complementary roles of IT-related human capital and non-routine tasks. ACM Trans. Management Inform. Systems 2(1):6:1–6:21.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1988) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organization fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fichman R (2004) Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: Emerging concepts and methods. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(8):314–355.Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Benassi M (2000) Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci. 11(2):183–196.Link, Google Scholar
• Gargiulo M, Ertug G, Galunic C (2009) The two faces of control: Network closure and individual performance among knowledge workers. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(2):299–333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goolsbee A, Klenow P (2002) Evidence of learning and network externalities in the diffusion of home computer. J. Law Econom. 45(2):317–343.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Granovetter M (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Amer. J. Sociol. 91(3):481–510.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis (Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ).Google Scholar
• Grewal R, Lilien GL, Mallapragada G (2006) Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Sci. 52(7):1043–1056.Link, Google Scholar
• Hansen M (1999) The search-transfer problem: The roles of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organizational subunits. Admin. Sci. Quart. 44(1):82–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsieh JP, Rai A, Keil M (2008) Understanding digital inequality: Comparing continued use behavioral models of the socio-economically advantaged and disadvantaged. MIS Quart. 32(1):97–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsieh JP, Rai A, Keil M (2011) Addressing digital inequality for the socioeconomically disadvantaged through government initiatives: Forms of capital that affect ICT utilization. Inform. Systems Res. 22(2):233–253.Link, Google Scholar
• Jenkins SP (1995) Easy estimation methods for discrete-time duration models. Oxford Bull. Econom. Statist. 57(1):129–138.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1986) Technology adoption in the presence of network externalities. J. Political Econom. 94(4):822–841.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Katz ML, Shapiro C (1994) Systems competition and network effects. J. Econom. Perspect. 8(2):93–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauffman RJ, McAndrews J, Wang Y (2000) Opening the “black box” of network externalities in network adoption. Inform. Systems Res. 11(1):61–82.Link, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1997) Organizational viscosity and the diffusion of controversial innovations. J. Math. Sociol. 22(2):177–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krackhardt D (1998) Simmelian ties: Super, strong and sticky. Kramer RM, Neale MA, eds. Power and Influence in Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lechner C, Floyd SW (2010) Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Acad. Management J. 53(4):865–889.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee A (1999) Inaugural editor's comments. MIS Quart. 23(1):v–xi.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lerner J, Tirole J (2005) The scope of open source licensing. J. Law, Econom. Organ. 21(10):20–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGrath C, Krackhardt D (2003) Network conditions for organizational change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 39(3):324–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mendez-Duron R, Garcia CE (2009) Returns from social capital in open source software networks. J. Evolutionary Econom. 19(2):277–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Molina-Morales FX, Martínez-Fernández MT (2009) Too much love in the neighborhood can hurt: How an excess of intensity and trust in relationships may produce negative effects on firms. Strategic Management J. 30(9):1013–1023.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Papa MJ (1990) Communication network patterns and employee performance with new technology. Comm. Res. 17(3):344–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Portes A (1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Amer. Rev. Sociol. 24:1–24.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Admin. Sci. Quart. 48(2):240–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robert L, Dennis A, Ahuja M (2008) Social capital and knowledge integration in digitally enabled teams. Inform. Systems Res. 19(3):314–334.Link, Google Scholar
• Rodan S, Galunic C (2004) More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management J. 25(6):541–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations (Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Shapiro C, Varian HR (1999) Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Shipilov A, Li SX (2008) Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes' influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):73–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Gosain S (2009) Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand individual-level system use. MIS Quart. 33(2):371–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2008) Identifying formal and informal influence in technology adoption with network externalities. Management Sci. 55(12):2024–2039.Link, Google Scholar
• Valente TW (1995) Network Models of the Diffusion of Innovations (Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ).Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Brown S (2001) A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quart. 25(1):71–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Davis FD, Morris MG (2007) Dead or alive? The development, trajectory and future of technology adoption research. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 8(4):267–286.Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Xin X (2012) Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quart. 36(1):157–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Zhang X, Sykes TA (2011) “Doctors do too little technology”: A longitudinal field study of an electronic healthcare systems implementation. Inform. Systems Res. 22(3):523–546.Link, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis F (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27(3):425–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu X, Venkatesh V, Tam KY, Hong SJ (2010) Model of migration and use of platforms: Role of hierarchy, current generation, and complementarities in consumer settings. Management Sci. 56(8):1304–1323.Link, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Bell GG (2005) Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management J. 26(9):809–825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaheer A, Soda G (2008) Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG (1987) Institutional theory of organization. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 13:443–464.Crossref, Google Scholar