Factors Affecting Integration Technologies Adoption: A Comparative Analysis Between SMEs And Large Companies

Hsin Chen School of Information Systems, Computing and Mathematics, Brunel University Hsin.Chen@brunel.ac.uk Abstract Integration technologies like Enterprise Application Integration (EAI) and Web Services allow organisations to collaborate with their partners, increase flexibility and gain competitive advantages. Despite the benefits that the integration of Information Systems (IS) can offer to enterprises, little attention has paid on the adoption of integration software by Small to Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs). The body of literature suggests that the findings that derive from the study of large enterprises can not be generalised and applied in SMEs due to the nature and characteristics of SMEs. In an attempt to study this area, research questions raised. These research questions are investigated in this paper and supported the authors to propose a research model. The proposed model might be used to explain why SMEs and large organisations take decisions for the adoption of integration technologies focusing on different factors. Keywords: SMEs, Integration technologies, EAI, Web Services, Integration technologies adoption Ching Fang Wu Yu Da College of Business, Taiwan, ROC Chingfangwu@yahoo.com.tw

1. Introduction
Despite the advantages that IS integration and practices can offer to organisations, little attention has paid on the adoption of integration software by small to medium sized enterprises (Hughes et al., 2003; Tagliavini et al., 2002). A review of the literature on integration technologies adoption indicates that many studies have mainly focused on large businesses (Lee et al., 1999; Premkumar et al., 1994; Themistocleous, 2001). Iacovou et al.,(1995) report that SMEs differ from large companies in many ways that affecting the adoption of integration technologies. Although the adoption of integration technologies are recognised to be different between large and small companies in the normative literature, the literature on integration technologies adoption in SMEs remains limited (Kuan and Chau, 2001). Thus, this paper attempts to address this research issue by studying the factors affecting integration technologies adoption based on a comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies. This paper aims at identifying and highlighting significant differences in the way SMEs and large companies approach integration technologies. In doing so, a conceptual model is introduced to explain the adoption of integration technologies between SMEs and large companies. The next step is to further investigate the different factors in the research model. Thus, the proposed conceptual model is redrawn to show a further stage that explains those factors that influence the different adoption factors between SMEs and large organisations for their adoption of integration technologies.

2. Literature Review
This section reviews the literature based on three areas organisations nature, organisations needs for integration and integration technologies adoption by SMEs and large companies

1534

aiming at identifying the differences between SMEs and large organisations in terms of their integration technologies adoption. 2.1 The Nature of the Organisations Storey and Cressy (1995) reported that about 11% of small businesses fail to survive in any given year. This failure rate is six times higher for smaller than it is for larger businesses. This is due to SMEs usually: (a) having little ability to influence market price by altering their output (Kirby, 2003); (b) having small market shares, so are unable to erect barriers to enter their industry (Deakins and Freel, 2003); and (c) can not easily raise prices and tend to be heavily dependent on a small number of customers (Storey, 1994). Small businesses cant usually afford to pay for the kind of accounting and book keeping services they need, nor can their new employees be adequately tested and trained in advance (Welsh and White, 1981). Small businesses are also under increasing pressure to employ IS to maintain their competitive positions. At the same time, there are more barriers to IS implementation in small businesses than there are for large businesses, due to the high capital investment and skilled manpower involved in implementing and operating IS (Thong, 2001). Welsh and White (1981) also pointed out that resource constraints (time, finance and expertise) in small businesses are based on the concept of the resource-based theory. The resource-based theory emphasises an understanding of the internal capabilities that enable organisations to secure competitive positions and the importance of internal resources in a company (Barney, 1991; Caldeira and Ward, 2003). Resources such as time, finance, and expertise that are all necessary for planning, represent the most critical difficulties for small businesses (Cohn and Lindberg, 1972). In addition, according to Attewells (1992) technology diffusion theory, it emphasises the role of external entities (e.g. consultants and IT vendors) as knowledge providers in lowering the knowledge barrier or knowledge deficiency on the parts of potential IS adopters. Small businesses tend to delay in-house IS implementation because they have insufficient knowledge to implement IS successfully (Thong, 2001). Based on the discussion in this section, it shows that SMEs nature impacts the way that they approach integration technologies. Due to the different natures (characteristics) of SMEs and large organisations (as discussed above), the author found that the nature of the organisations is one of the factors that affects the adoption of integration technologies by organisations. 2.2 Company Sizes Due to the company size differences between SMEs and large organisations, they manage their systems in different ways. Apart from organisational or strategic remarks, various literature emphasises size as one of the issues that is increasing the need for the co-ordination and control of organisational activities (Howard and Hine, 1997; Ling, 2001; Nilakanta and Scamell, 1990; Yasai-Ardekani and Haung, 1997). Tagliavini et al.(2002) proposed that company size is an important factor affecting ERP adoption. DeLone (1981) also suggested that computer usage characteristics are different in organisations of different sizes. Other research work, like IDCs (1999), suggest a direct relationship between the size of organisations and the percentage of those organisations in which ERP has been implemented. All these studies indicated that the size of the organisations have many different impacts on the ways that the organisations do things. SMEs can be categorised as micro sized companies if they have up to 20 employees. SMEs can also be defined as small sized companies if they have up to 100 employees, whereas SMEs can be classified as being medium sized companies if they have up to 500 employees. Companies that have more than 500 employees can be seen as large organisations. Company size is important, as a company with 20 employees and a company with 500 employees have different ways of managing their IS. For

1535

example, the same system might be managed by 200 employees from the IT department in large companies, but only managed by 20 or less employees in small companies. In accordance with the views discussed here, the author suggests that there is a possibility that companies of different sizes follow different approaches towards the adoption of integration technologies. Thus, company size is included here as a factor that affects the adoption of integration technologies. 2.3 The Needs for Integration It was found that organisations adopt a new technology only if it provides significantly better benefits than their existing ones (Rogers, 1995). A new technology has to provide solutions for existing problems or open up new opportunities to motivate an organisation to take a proactive decision to adopt it with a trading partner. Although the organisational structure of larger organisations could be very different from SMEs, companies of any size show a critical need for the coordination and control of business activities (Tagliavini et al., 2002). Therefore, by reviewing the existing literature on the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs, a number of reasons that push SMEs to turn to integration technologies to support their IS have been identified. These reasons are explained as follows: External Pressures: External forces tend to have more impact on small businesses than they do on large businesses (Iacovou et al., 1995; Welsh and White, 1981). In many cases, a company may adopt a technology due to the influences exerted by its business partners and/or its competitors, having no relation to the technology and organisation itself. For example, pressures from business partners or competitors have been found to be an important factor in the adoption of integration technologies (Hart and Saunders, 1998; Kuan and Chau, 2001; Premkumar et al., 1994). Since SMEs are usually the weaker partners in inter-organisational relationships, small businesses are susceptible to impositions by their larger partners (Saunders and Hart, 1993). Therefore, most SMEs are under pressure to adopt integration technologies if its business partners request or recommend it to do so. Internal Pressures: Internal pressures include both the financial and technological resources of the firm. As mentioned before, SMEs need to control their cash flows carefully, as they do not have unlimited funds for their IS projects. Thus, smaller firms tend to choose the cheapest system which may be adequate for their purposes (Thong, 2001). In addition, Thong (2001) also reported that small businesses tend to have insufficient knowledge to implement IS successfully, thus, SMEs might need to seek external expertise (e.g. IT vendors etc.). These all indicate that SMEs need for integration technologies might be based on their internal resources/pressures. Competition: The main reason SMEs adopt IT is to enhance their competitiveness (Iacovou et al., 1995; Pollard and Hayne, 1998). Therefore, SMEs may feel the pressure when they see more and more companies in the industry adopting the integration technologies to solve the technical difficulties caused by the incompatibility of systems, especially if it is their business partners, competitors or larger trading partners. Thus, SMEs will feel under pressure and the need to adapt to the IS integrated environment to remain competitive. The discussion in this section shows that different sized companies might have different needs and ways of managing their adoption of integration technologies. Hence, the author concludes that SMEs integration needs are different from those of large companies and their need for integration might also affect their adoption decisions. Therefore, integration needs

1536

are also included as a factor that affects the decision to adopt integration technologies in this research. 2.4 Integration Technologies Adoption by SMEs and Large Organisations To better understand the current literature on integration technologies adoption in both SMEs and large organisations. The authors have summarised the current studies related to EDI, ERP, EAI and Web Services adoption in both large and small to medium sized enterprises in Table 1. These papers were selected as these papers are specifically focused on the adoption of the integration technologies rather than implementation or any other issues. Since the focus of the research is to investigate the adoption of integration technologies, thus, these papers well justified the purpose of this research.
Type of Factors Description Organisation SMEs Benefits, Barriers, Costs, Internal pressures, External pressures, IT sophistication, IT infrastructure, Support, Evaluation framework for the integration technology and packages. Perceived benefits; Organisational readiness; External pressure. Perceived Industry Pressure; Perceived Government Pressure; Perceived Financial Cost; Perceived Technical ; Competence; Perceived direct benefits; Perceived indirect benefits. Customer and peer pressure; The desire for speedier and better communications; Supplier dependence; Customer power; Volume of EDI use; Supplier commitment; Supplier trust; Diversity of EDI use. Themistocleous (2002) studies the adoption of EAI in multinational organisations and has identified several factors for EAI adoption. Large References

EAI

Themistocleous (2002)

Iacovou et al.,(1995) proposed an adoption framework to address the issue of the major factors that explain the EDI adoption behaviour of small organisations and the expected impact of the technology in the small business context. Kuan and Chau (2001) use a technologyorganisation-environment framework to propose a perception-based small business EDI adoption model that is tested against data collected from 575 small frims in Hong Kong. Banerjee and Golhar (1994) examined the positive and negative impacts of various factors on the EDI selection decision alone with the impact of EDI on an organisations employees. Hart and Saunders (1998) studied the role of power and trust in EDI adoption and use. The study also evaluated the differences between proactive and reactive firms in terms of the extent of adaptation, external connectivity with trading partners and the integration of EDI information. Raymond and Bergeron (1996) examined the factors account for EDI adoption in small to medium sized enterprises. Vega et al.,(1997) define a model which examines the role of several factors related to external environment and the organisational context in influencing the extent to which EDI is integrated, and whether more extensive integration has an impact on organisational outcomes. Premkumar and Ramamurth (1995) examined the role of inter-organisational and organisational factors on the decision mode for adoption of EDI. Chau and Hui (2001) conduct a study to identify the key determinants of small business EDI adoption.

Iacovou et al., (1995)

Kuan and Chau (2001)

Banerjee and Golhar (1994)

Hart and Saunders (1998) Raymond and Bergeron (1996)

EDI

Organisational support Implementation processes Control procedures Competitiveness; Uncertainty; Dependence; Communication needs; Technology and services; Organisational maturity; IT maturity; Rationale for EDI; Implementation process; Top management support; Perceived benefits. Competitive pressure; Exercised power; Internal need; Top management support. Government influence; Business partners influence; Perceived direct benefits; Perceived indirect benefits; Prior EDI experience; Perceived support from the vendor; Perceived costs.

Vega et al.,(1997)

Premkumar and Ramamurth (1995)

Chau and Hui (2001)

1537

 Competitive pressures Industry pressures Enacted trading partners pressure Dependency on partners Financial resources IT sophistication Trading partners readiness Perceived benefits Organisational readiness External pressure Availability of EDI standards IS innovation type; Compatibility; Divisibility; Customisability; Cost; Complexity; Relative advantage; Communicability; Web Services awareness readiness; Web Services fit readiness; Technological skills readiness; Financial resource readiness. Relatively advantage; Compatibility; Image; Ease of use; Security; Triability; Result demonstrability; Visibility; Vouluntariness. Standards and stakeholders Technical factors Perceived benefits Senior management support Knowledge transfer mechanism Suitable technical architecture

Chwelos et al., (2001) further validated the model proposed by Iacovou et al.,(1995) and performed an empirical work predicting EDI adoption. They suggested that the factors identified by Iacovou et al.,(1995) can be addressed into three major types of adoption perspectives: the technological, the organisational, and the inter-organisational. Heck and Ribbers (1999) focus the research on the adoption and impact of EDI in Dutch SMEs. Wu and Sawy (2003) study Web Services as a special case of IT industry innovation. They first review two key issues at the innovation level of analysis: type of innovation and innovation characteristics. Then they develop a 3-layer nestedstage model as a road map for studying Web Services innovation. Zhang and Huang (2004) propose a Web Services adoption model by applying diffusion theory and security related research in technology adoption. Chen (2003) develop a framework for analysing the driving forces for the adoption of Web Services based on literature review, technical information analysis, field and Web-based case studies. Vidgen et al.(2004) explore the role of Web services in SMEs through application of Venkatramans business transformation model via case studies.

Chwelos et al.,(2001)

Heck and Ribbers (1999)

Wu and Sawy (2003)

Web Services

Zhang and Huang (2004)

Chen (2003)

Vidgen et al.(2004)

Table 1. Current Research on EDI, ERP, EAI and Web Services Adoption

From Table 1, the authors found that firstly, similar factors are sometimes used to explain different adoptions of integration technologies. For example, IT sophistication, perceived benefits, technical competence, support and financial resources factors were applied to explain EAI, EDI and Web Services adoptions in many studies. Therefore, these factors can be considered as the most important factors for explaining the adoption of integration technologies. In other words, these factors are the common factors for the adoption of integration technologies, since many studies have mentioned these factors in their research models for the adoption of EAI, EDI or Web Services. Secondly, the authors found that only a few factors were used to explain both the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs and large organisations. For instance, factors like perceived benefits, perceived financial costs and external pressures were used to explain the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs as well as large organisations. However, among these research papers, there was only one of the papers in which the author referred to this research concerning the EAI and Web Services adoption in SMEs. This indicates that (a) there is a lack of literature on EAI and Web Services adoption in SMEs; and (b) most of the factors identified from the normative literature can not be equally applied to both SMEs and large companies to interpret their integration technologies adoption decisions as having one piece of evidence is not enough to represent every example. In accordance with the above considerations, there is a high possibility that SMEs and large companies take their decision for the adoption of integration technologies by mostly focusing on different factors. This assumption matches with the literature where it is reported that the adoption of integration technologies is different for both large and small companies. Thus, the factors for the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs and large organisations

1538

should be included in the conceptual model to explain the adoption of integration technologies more precisely. 2.5 Time According to the literature, the author found that most of the factors that focused on the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs are mostly external forces e.g. governmental support, external pressures, pressure from trading partners, etc. This indicates that in many situations SMEs are forced to adopt integration technologies as their partners require them to do so (Iacovou et al., 1995; Kuan and Chau, 2001). Due to these reasons, when referring to the adoption life cycles, some literature suggest that SMEs tend to be the late adopters (late majority/laggards) in the adoption of new technology/innovation, rather than the early adopters (Iacovou et al., 1995; Kuan and Chau, 2001; Ling, 2001). Laggards can be summarised as those who only adopt a technology when they have no choice. Laggards innovation-decision process is relatively lengthy, with adoption and use lagging far behind the awareness-knowledge of a new idea. Resistance to new technologies on the part of laggards may be entirely rational from the laggards viewpoint, as their resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they adopt it. Kirby (2003) and Storey (1994) are among those others who claim that SMEs can not afford to fail due to their limited resources. Therefore, most SMEs can be categorised as laggards. SMEs can also be categorised in the late majority group. The adopters in the late majority group not only want to be certain that the new technology works, they also want to wait until its been widely adopted and standardised. However, there may be an exceptional case where SMEs might be considered as innovators, such as when SMEs are Hi-technology firms. Hi-technology SMEs might use more advanced or sophisticated information technologies for their production or information systems management than those SMEs from other sectors. Nevertheless, most large companies tend to be in the early adopters/early majority group, with even some of them being classified as innovators. Early adopters are more interested in the business and competitive advantages of a new technology rather the technology itself, but they are still risk-takers since they are willing to adopt a new technology before it has been proven or widely accepted. They do not want to take the risk of adopting a technology too early, even though they also recognise that waiting too long can put them at a substantial disadvantage (Rogers, 1995). They want to make sure the technology works for others before they invest (Kaye, 2003). Thus, based on the above discussion, the author found that time plays an important role in terms of the adoption of integration technologies, as late adopters may find that they have a competitive disadvantage. Kaye (2003) suggested that by extending the middle of the early-adopter phase into the start of the late-majority phase, this period may offer a competitive advantage to the adoption of Web Services. However, at some time early in the late majority phase, having implemented Web Services ceases to offer any competitive advantage, and not having implemented anything begins to be a problem. Thus, time is included here as a factor affecting the adoption of integration technologies. 2.6 Factors for the Adoption of Integration Technologies
Based on the discussion in section 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.5, the potential factors were identified by the authors that can be used to explain the adoption of integration technologies by SMEs and large companies. This is shown in Figure 2.

1539

Large Companies

Adoption Factors for Large Companies Adoption Factors for SMEs

Nature

Company Size

Integration Technologies Adoption

Integration Needs

Time

SMEs

Figure 2. Factors for the Adoption of Integration Technologies between SMEs and Large Organisations

3. Investigating the Factors between SMEs and Large Companies The second stage of this research was to investigate whether the integration technologies adoption factors for large and small firms are different, if they are to what extent to which the integration needs, the nature of the firms and time influence the different adoption factors. In doing so, the authors re-drawn the research model proposed in Figure 2 to show that due to the differences between organisations integration needs, the nature of the firms and the timing of adoption, SMEs and large organisations take decisions for the adoption of integration technologies focusing on different factors. This is shown in Figure 3.
Nature Integration Needs Time Company Size

Integration Technologies Adoption Factors Figure 3. Conceptual Model

4. Conclusions and Further Research

This research has attempted to study the factors affecting the integration technologies adoption in SMEs based on comparative analysis between SMEs and large companies. In doing so, the authors critically analyse the normative literature regarding the integration technologies adoption in both SMEs and large organisations with number of research questions raised. These research questions are: (a) to what extent does SMEs integration needs differ from large companies; (b) is the nature of SMEs a real obstacle to the adoption of integration technologies; (c) what is the relationship between integration technologies and their adoptions in companies of a different size; (d) do SMEs and large companies consider the same factors when taking decisions for the adoption of integration technologies; and (e) if the adoption factors for SMEs and large organisations are thought to be different, to what extent do integration needs, the nature of the firms and time, influence the different adoption factors. Based on these research questions and the analysis of the literature, the authors found that the differences between SMEs and large companies on their nature, integration need, company size, adoption factors and their timing of adopting integration technologies are important factors affecting integration technologies adoption in SMEs. Hence, a conceptual model was proposed by the author. However, the research model proposed in this article has not been tested yet as this research is in progress. Thus, the conceptual model needs to be further examined through the practical arena. Thus, the authors propose that further research is crucial to test the proposed conceptual model.

5. References
A list of selected references is provided below. Please contact the authors for a full list of references.

1540

Attewell, P. 1992. 'Technology diffusion and organizational learning: the case of business computing', Organisation Science, 3 1-19. Banerjee, S. and Golhar, D. Y. 1994. 'Electronic data interchange: characteristics of users and nonusers', Information and Management, 26 (2): 65-74. Barney, J. 1991. 'Firm resources and sustainable comkpetitive advantage', Journal of Management, 17 (1): 99-120. Caldeira, M. M. and Ward, M. J. 2003. 'Using Resource-Based Theory to Interpret the Successful Adoption and Use of Information Systems and Technology in Manufacturing Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises', European Journal of Information Research, 12 127-141. Chau, P. Y. K. and Hui, K. L. 2001. 'Determinants of Small Busijness EDI Adoption: An Empirical Investigation', Journal of Organisational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 11 (4): 229-252. Chen, M. 2003. 'An Analysis of the Driving Forces for the Adoption of Web Services', Proceedings of The Second Workshop on e-Business, Dec 13-14 2003, Seattle, U.S.A, 173-184. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. S. 2001. 'Research report: Empirical Test of an EDI Adoption Model', Information Systems Research, 12 (3): 304-321. Cohn, T. and Lindberg, R. A. 1972. 'How management is different in small companies', American Management Association, New York. Deakins, D. and Freel, M. 2003. 'Entrepreneurship and Small Firms Third Edition', McGrawHill Education, Berkshire, U.K. DeLone, W. H. 1981. 'Firm size and the characteristics of computer use', MIS Quarterly, December (1981): 65-77. Hart, P. J. and Saunders, C. S. 1998. 'Emerging electronic partnerships: antecedents and dimensions of EDI use from the supplier's perspective', Journal of Management Information System, 14 (4): 87-111. Heck, E. and Ribbers, P. 1999. 'The adoption and impact of EDI in Dutch SMEs', Proceedings of 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, Hawaii, Howard, D. and Hine, D. 1997. 'The population of organisations life cycle (POLC): IMPLICATIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS', International Small Business Journal, 15 (3): 30-41. Hughes, M., Golden, W. and Powell, P. 2003. 'Inter-organisational ICT systems: the way to innovative practice for SMEs', Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10 (3): 277-286. Iacovou, C., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A. 1995. 'Electronic Data Interchange and Small Organisations: Adoption and Impact of Technology', MIS Quarterly, 19 (4): 465-485. IDC 1999. 'India: corporate growth driving ERP adoption', Business line, pp 1. Kaye, D. 2003. 'Loosely Coupled: the Missing Pieces of Web Services', RDS Press, Marin County, California. Kirby, A. D. 2003. 'Entrepreneurship', McGraw-Hill Education, Glasgow, U.K. Systems, ECIS, Bled, Slovenia, PhD Consortium.

1541