Construct · 3 names · 3 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · pushed by your partners, several framings Nearest construct by meaningcompetitive pressurecompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to trading partner pressure is competitive pressure.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which a small firm feels compelled to adopt an inter-organizational technology by forces outside its own walls, in Iacovou, Benbasat, and Dexter's 1995 EDI adoption model. They set external pressure beside organizational readiness and perceived benefits as one of three factors driving whether a small business becomes EDI capable, and split it into two sources: competitive pressure from the industry at large, and direct imposition by powerful trading partners on whom a weak, dependent firm relies. Because a small firm has little market power, it is the second source, a large buyer or supplier demanding EDI as a condition of doing business, that most often forces its hand. The referent is a felt push to adopt, not the benefit expected from adoption or the resources needed to carry it out.[1]
The environmental slice of the technology, organization, environment framework as it bears on inter-organizational systems: whether a firm's trading partners are themselves ready and whether they press for adoption. Chwelos, Benbasat, and Dexter's 2001 empirical test of an EDI adoption model operationalised external pressure as competitive pressure plus the enacted and imposed pressure of trading partners, and reported that this pressure, together with readiness, mattered far more than perceived benefits for the intent to adopt. They cast the model's factors as technological, organizational, and inter-organizational, the last a restatement of the environmental context for a networked technology. What differs from the origin model is the frame: here partner pressure is one cell of a general TOE grid meant to travel to other emerging systems.[2]
The pressure a dependent organization feels to conform to the practices of those it relies on, which DiMaggio and Powell's 1983 account of institutional isomorphism named coercive isomorphism: change forced on an organization by others to which it is beholden, whether through formal mandate or the informal weight of expectation. A firm that depends on a powerful partner for resources or legitimacy comes to resemble it, adopting its systems and routines not because they pay off but because the relationship demands it. Applied to technology adoption, this is the theoretical parent of trading partner pressure: the large buyer imposing EDI on its suppliers is exercising coercive power over dependent firms. What differs is the level of the claim, a general mechanism of organizational fields rather than a variable in an adoption survey.[3]
Next
See how trading partner pressure sits against neighbouring constructs in the Collider, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct