Factors Affecting Information Technology Adoption in Thai Small and Medium Food Manufacturing
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Based on an integration of institutional theory, resource dependence theory and theory of perceived attributes, this study developed a model of factors influencing the information technology adoption in Thai small and medium food manufacturing firms. Of the 800 small and medium food manufacturing that were mailed surveys,177 returned completed questionnaires. Results of hypothesis testing indicated that the information technology adoption in Thai small and medium food manufacturing firms is significantly influenced by compatibility, relative advantage and cost of information technology, perceived importance of stakeholder, firm size, and management commitment. The results of the hypothesis testing and field research which were factory visits and in-depth interviews suggested that government formulate information technology policies in favor of educating top management and entrepreneur of small and medium food manufacturing firms to realize the advantage of using information technology in their firms, allocating resources towards the smaller firms that have limited resources, using incentives to encourage manufacturing firms to invest and use information technology system such as subsidizing lower interest rate loans or tax reduction.
Article Details
Copyright Notice articles, information, images, etc. was published in this Journal of Yala Rajabhat University is a copyright of the journal Yala Rajabhat University. If any person or deparment wants to bring all or part of it for publish or take any action. Authorization is required in written form from the Journal of Yala Rajabhat University only.
References
2.สมยศ นาวีการ. (2548). การบริหารเชิงกลยุทธ์. กรุงเทพฯ : สำนักพิมพ์บรรณกิจ 1991.
3.สำนักงานส่งเสริมวิสาหกิจขนาดกลางและขนาดย่อม. (2556). รายงานประจำปี 2555. กรุงเทพฯ : ผู้แต่ง.
4.Covaleski, M. A. & Dirsmith, M. W. (1988). An institutional perspective on the rise, social transformation, and fall of a university budget category. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33, 562-587.
5.Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrical, 16, 297-334.
6.Davis, F. (1985). A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. MIT Sloan School of Management. Cambridge, MA.
7.Dimaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited - institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.
8.Goodstein, J. D. (1994). Institutional pressures and strategic responsiveness: employer involvement in work-family issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 350-382.
9.Greening, D. W. & Gray, B. (1994). Testing a model of organizational response to social and political issues. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 467-498.
10.Hair, J. F. Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11.Harvey, B. & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing relationships with environmental stakeholders: a study of U.K. water electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 243-261.
12.Hong, W. & Zhu, K. (2006). Migrating to internet-based e-commerce: factors affecting e-commerce adoption and migration at the firm level. Information & Management, 43(2), 204-221.
13.Jawahar, M. I. & McLaughlin, G. L. (2001). Toward a descriptive stakeholder theory: an organizational life cycle approach. Academy of Management Review, 26, 397-414.
14.Lovea, P. E. D. & Iranib, Z. (2004). An exploratory study of information technology evaluation and benefits management practices of SMEs in the construction industry. Information & Management, 42, 227–242.
15.Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145-179.
16.Pfeffer, J. & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. New York: Harper & Row.
17.Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. (3rded.). New York: Free Press.
18.Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of Innovations. (4thed.). New York: Free Press.
19.Russo, M. V. & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534-559.
20.Tan, K. S., Chong, S. C., Lin, B. & Eze, U. C. (2009). Internet-based ICT adoption: evidence from Malaysian SMEs. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(2), 224-244.
21.Thong, J. Y. (1999). An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses. Journal of Management Information Systems, 15(4), 187-214.
22.Thong, J. Y. & Yap, C. S. (1995). CEO characteristics, organizational characteristics and technology adoption in small business. Omega, 23(4), 429-442.
23.Welsh, J. A. & White, J. F. (1981). A small business is not a little big business. Harvard Business Review, 59(4),18.
24.Wever, G. H. & Vorhauer, G. F. (1993). Kodak’s framework and assessment tool for implementing TQEM. Total Quality Environmental Management, 2(2), 19-30.