Toole, T M (1994) Task and environmental uncertainty and adoption of technological innovations by home builders. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.
Abstract
How are home building firms that are more apt to adapt technological innovations before they are widely diffused different from those that are less apt to do so? An empirical investigation involving multiple regression analysis of data collected from over 100 small- and medium-sized home building firms showed that relatively early adopters tap into more sources of information about new products from portions of their organizational environment. No significant relationships were found to exist between adoption behavior and either company size, number of years the company has been in business, or market segment served (i. e. , house price). How are home building firms that are more apt to adopt $\underline{\rm high}$ uncertainty technological innovations before they are widely diffused different from those that are more apt to adopt $\underline{\rm low}$ uncertainty innovations before they are widely diffused? The two groups differ in the characteristics of the individuals involved in innovation-related activities. Propensity to adopt $\underline{\rm high}$ uncertainty, non-diffused innovations is associated with having higher numbers of functions (e. g. , top management, office administration, sales, design, site supervision) involved in making adoption decisions, and with having at least one individual with a building trades background involved in innovation-related activities. On the other hand, propensity to adopt $\underline{\rm low}$ uncertainty, non-diffused innovations is associated with having at least one individual with an architectural or engineering background involved in innovation-related activities, and with having a more positive attitude about adoption of innovations and/or higher tolerance of uncertainty. The results of this research suggest that, contrary to the prevailing opinion within the home building industry, builders' adoption of technological innovations partially reflects factors within their control. However, contrary to widespread public perception, the vast majority of home builders are neither apathetic nor excessively conservative about new building technologies. The results also suggest that the construct of uncertainty deserves a more prominent position within organizational diffusion theory.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Moavenzadeh, F |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | building firms; building trades; innovation; market; multiple regression; regression analysis; supervision; uncertainty |
| Index terms: | multiple-regression, top management, house price, builder, organizational environment, home building, investigation, building technology, supervision, regression analysis, building trade, technological innovation, market segment, environmental uncertainty, multiple regression analysis, diffusion theory, building firm |
| Subjects: | financial risk, market analysis, innovation and technology management, engineering systems, statistical analysis, management, sociology, economic analysis, organization, practitioner, construction type, control systems, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Project Management, Cost Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here