IT Implementation Research - Cooper & Zmud (1990)

Theory Publication Information

Citation Information

Why Was the Model Created?

During the 1980s, information technology was becoming central to organizational operations, yet many organizations experienced disappointing results from technology implementations. Systems were installed but underutilized. Technologies promised to improve productivity but frequently encountered user resistance or were abandoned after implementation. Research distinguishing successful implementations from failures remained limited. Prior information systems research focused primarily on technology selection and adoption decisions but provided limited insight into implementation processes - how organizations actually integrated technologies into operations and achieved intended benefits.

Cooper and Zmud observed that information technology implementation differed fundamentally from simple technology adoption. Adoption meant deciding to use a technology; implementation meant integrating a technology into organizational operations, ensuring employees used the technology effectively, and realizing intended benefits. Many organizations adopted technologies they failed to implement effectively, resulting in unused systems and failed projects. The authors recognized that implementation deserved distinct theoretical treatment from adoption. They applied Kwon and Zmud’s (1987) IT implementation research model - itself based on the organizational change, innovation, and technological diffusion literatures and with stages founded on Lewin’s (1952) change model - incorporating post-adoption behaviors developed by Zmud and Apple (1989) to describe implementation as a systematic process progressing through identifiable stages.

The authors sought to answer critical questions: What stages do organizations progress through when implementing information technology? What organizational activities characterize each stage? What factors predict successful progression through implementation stages? What distinguishes organizations that realize technology benefits from organizations that fail to achieve intended benefits after technology adoption? By understanding implementation as multi-stage process, Cooper and Zmud aimed to provide practitioners and researchers with structured approach to understanding technology implementation success and failure.

What Does the Model Measure?

Cooper & Zmud (1990) apply a six-stage IT implementation process model (from Kwon & Zmud, 1987) to an empirical study of Material Requirements Planning (MRP) adoption and infusion in U.S. manufacturing firms. The paper contributes two operationalized constructs:

• MRP Adoption:A binary indicator of whether the firm had adopted MRP (coded 0 for reorder point use, 1 for Class D through Class A MRP use), modelled via logistic regression against task and technology characteristics derived from H1-H4: manufacturing method (continuous vs. intermittent), marketing strategy (make-to-stock vs. make-to-order), average number of bill-of-material levels, and average number of parts per bill-of-material level (Cooper & Zmud, 1990, pp. 131-133, Tables 4A-4B).
• MRP Infusion:A binary indicator of the depth of MRP use within the adopting firm, operationalized using the Wight (1977) / Anderson et al. (1981) A-D classification scheme (coded 0 for Class C use, 1 for Class B or A use; Class D and reorder point firms omitted). Class A reflects a closed-loop system used for both priority and capacity planning with top management; Class C reflects an order-launching system with priority planning only (Cooper & Zmud, 1990, pp. 130-131).

The study draws a random sample of 100 American Production and Inventory Control Society members, of whom 62 provided usable responses; 10 additional firms were eliminated for lacking a clearly dominant marketing strategy, leaving 52 firms for the adoption analysis and 32 firms for the infusion analysis (Cooper & Zmud, 1990, pp. 131-132). Table 1 (p. 125) maps the five contextual factor categories (user, organization, task, technology, environment) across the six implementation stages as a conceptual framework; the empirical study targeted the task-by-technology interaction at two stages (adoption and infusion). The empirical finding: the interaction of managerial task characteristics with IT does affect MRP adoption but does not significantly affect MRP infusion- suggesting that rational decision models may explain adoption but that political and learning models may be more appropriate for infusion (Cooper & Zmud, 1990, abstract).

Core Concepts and Definitions

The six-stage IT implementation model (Kwon & Zmud, 1987, adapted in Cooper & Zmud, 1990) conceptualizes IT implementation as an organizational effort to diffuse appropriate information technology within a user community. Each stage has a characteristic process and product(Cooper & Zmud, 1990, pp. 124-125):

• Initiation: Process - active and/or passive scanning of organizational problems/opportunities and IT solutions; pressure to change evolves from organizational need (pull), technological innovation (push), or both. Product - a match is found between an IT solution and its application in the organization.
• Adoption: Process - rational and political negotiations to get organizational backing for implementation of the IT application. Product - a decision is reached to invest resources necessary to accommodate the implementation effort.
• Adaptation: Process - the IT application is developed, installed, and maintained; organizational procedures are revised and developed; employees are trained in both new procedures and the IT application. Product - the IT application is available for use in the organization.
• Acceptance: Process - organizational members are induced to commit to IT application usage. Product - the IT application is employed in organizational work.
• Routinization:Process - usage of the IT application is encouraged as a normal activity. Product - the organization’s governance systems are adjusted to account for the IT application; the IT application is no longer perceived as something out of the ordinary.
• Infusion: Process - increased organizational effectiveness is obtained by using the IT application in a more comprehensive and integrated manner to support higher-level aspects of organizational work. Product - the IT application is used to its fullest potential (citing Sullivan, 1985).

Cooper & Zmud (1990, p. 124) map the stages onto Lewin’s change model:Initiation is associated with Lewin’s unfreezing stage; Adoption and Adaptation with the change stage; and Acceptance, Routinization, and Infusion with the refreezing stage.

Five contextual factor categories shape progress through each stage (Kwon & Zmud, 1987, summarized in Cooper & Zmud, 1990, Table 1): user characteristics (tenure, education, resistance to change), organizational characteristics (specialization, centralization, formalization), technology characteristics (complexity), task characteristics (uncertainty, autonomy, variety), and environmental characteristics (uncertainty, interorganizational dependence). Theinteraction among these factors is also important.

Preceding Models or Theories

The Six-Stage Implementation Model synthesized prior change management and innovation diffusion theories:

• Lewin’s Change Management Theory (Lewin, 1947, 1952): Established foundational model of organizational change as three-stage process: unfreezing (destabilizing existing conditions), changing (introducing new ways), and refreezing (stabilizing new behaviors). Cooper and Zmud extended this model to information technology implementation context.
• Diffusion of Innovations Theory (Rogers, 1962, 1983): Established that innovations diffuse through populations in systematic stages: knowledge (awareness), persuasion (interest), decision (choice to adopt), implementation (use), and confirmation (commitment). Cooper and Zmud applied diffusion framework specifically to technology implementation.
• Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1985, 1989): Identified perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as predictors of technology acceptance. Cooper and Zmud incorporated technology acceptance constructs into understanding implementation success.
• Organizational Behavior and Change Theory (Kotter, 1995; Schein, 1992): Emphasized that organizational change requires managing technical changes, organizational structures, and individual behaviors. Implementation requires attention to all three dimensions.
• Systems Implementation Research (Schultz & Slevin, 1975; Ginzberg, 1981): Prior research examined information systems implementation, identifying factors predicting implementation success. Cooper and Zmud systematized findings into stage-based model.
• Organizational Learning Theory (Argyris & Schon, 1978): Emphasized that organizations learn and adapt through experience. Implementation success depends on organizational learning as employees master new technologies.

Describe The Model

The Six-Stage IT Implementation Model proposes that information technology implementation progresses through six distinct stages, each characterized by specific organizational activities, challenges, and outcomes. Progression through stages is not automatic; each stage requires successful completion of specific tasks and resolution of stage-specific challenges. Organizations may stall at particular stages, progressing slowly or failing to advance. Understanding stage characteristics enables practitioners to identify implementation bottlenecks and apply appropriate interventions.

Stage 1: Initiation

Organizations recognize technology opportunity or respond to perceived need. Leadership identifies gap between current capabilities and desired future capabilities. Environmental or competitive pressure, internal problem recognition, or innovative leadership may trigger initiation stage. Activities include problem/opportunity definition, initial feasibility assessment, and preliminary technology evaluation. Stage completes when organization decides to proceed with technology adoption.

• Key Activities: Problem/opportunity identification, needs assessment, initial technology research, executive sponsorship
• Key Challenges: Building leadership consensus, securing budget commitment, overcoming organizational inertia
• Success Factors: Clear problem/opportunity statement, executive championing, adequate resources allocated

Stage 2: Adoption

Organization makes formal decision to adopt specific technology, committing resources and organizational support. Detailed planning occurs, including implementation timeline, budget, resource allocation, and organizational structure. Vendor selection, contract negotiation, and project team formation occur. Stage represents formal commitment to implementation. Activities include systems analysis, design, and development. Stage completes when organization is ready to begin technical installation.

• Key Activities: Detailed requirements analysis, vendor selection, project planning, team formation, preliminary training needs identification
• Key Challenges: Managing scope creep, coordinating multiple stakeholders, securing sustained resource commitment
• Success Factors: Detailed project planning, strong project management, clear requirements definition, stakeholder alignment

Stage 3: Adaptation

Organization adapts technology to specific organizational context. Technical installation occurs, systems are configured, data is loaded, interfaces are tested. Organizations often must modify technology or adapt organizational processes to enable technology integration. Stage involves learning about technology capabilities and limitations, understanding technology integration requirements, and making technology-versus-process modification decisions. Stage completes when technology is technically operational and ready for user testing.

• Key Activities: System installation, data conversion, configuration, customization, technical testing, user training begins
• Key Challenges: Unexpected technical complications, data conversion problems, scope changes, user resistance beginning to emerge
• Success Factors: Competent technical team, rigorous testing, rapid problem resolution, clear communication with users

Stage 4: Acceptance

Organization conducts user testing, receives user feedback, addresses implementation issues identified through testing. Employees begin actual technology use in operational context. Intensive training and support occur. Stage involves managing user concerns, resolving implementation problems, and building user confidence in technology. This stage typically experiences highest user resistance and organizational disruption. Stage completes when users accept the technology and begin incorporating it into regular work practices.

• Key Activities: User testing and feedback, training delivery, support desk establishment, bug fixes and adjustments, change management
• Key Challenges: User resistance, inadequate training, system performance problems, ongoing required modifications
• Success Factors: Strong change management, effective training, responsive support, rapid problem resolution, user involvement

Stage 5: Routinization

Technology becomes integrated into normal organizational operations. Technology use becomes routine rather than novel or exceptional. Employees develop competence and comfort with technology. Support evolves from intensive hand-holding to normal operational support. Performance monitoring identifies ongoing issues. Stage represents transition from implementation project to operational system. Organization may expand technology use to additional departments or functions.

• Key Activities: Ongoing performance monitoring, support normalization, capability expansion, continuous improvement
• Key Challenges: Maintaining user engagement, preventing complacency, adapting to organizational changes
• Success Factors: Embedded support, performance metrics, ongoing optimization, user feedback mechanisms

Stage 6: Infusion

Organization fully leverages technology capabilities to enhance business processes, create new capabilities, or achieve strategic objectives. Technology is no longer viewed as tool to perform existing tasks but as enabler of new ways of working. Organizations optimize processes around technology capabilities. Full infusion may take years or decades. Stage represents the ultimate objective of technology implementation: achieving transformational benefits rather than simply automating existing processes.

• Key Activities: Business process optimization, strategic capability enhancement, technology-enabled innovation
• Key Challenges: Overcoming legacy thinking, enabling organizational learning, managing continuous change
• Success Factors: Continuous improvement culture, innovation focus, strategic technology vision

Key Mechanisms

• Stage progression: Successful implementation requires progressing through all six stages. Rushing through stages or skipping stages increases failure risk.
• Organizational learning: Each stage involves organizational learning about technology capabilities, integration requirements, and usage patterns. Learning accumulation enables progression to later stages.
• User engagement: User involvement throughout implementation increases acceptance and utilization. Early user resistance may delay progression through stages.
• Top management support: Leadership commitment influences resource allocation, priority given to implementation, and organizational support throughout all stages.
• Change management: Each stage involves organizational change. Effective change management smooths transitions between stages.

Main Strengths

• Distinguishes adoption from implementation: Critical insight that technology adoption and technology implementation are distinct processes requiring different management approaches.
• Provides diagnostic framework: Practitioners can assess which stage implementation is at and apply stage-appropriate interventions.
• Identifies stage-specific challenges: Different stages present different challenges and require different management responses.
• Incorporates change management: Emphasizes that technology implementation is as much organizational change as technical installation.
• Explains implementation failures: Many implementation failures occur because organizations attempt to rush through stages or fail to address stage-specific challenges adequately.
• Practical applicability: Stage framework provides structure enabling practitioners to manage implementations systematically.

Main Weaknesses

• Linear stage model limitations: While presented as sequential stages, implementation may be iterative, with organizations cycling back to earlier stages rather than progressing linearly.
• Stage duration variation: The model does not specify how long stages typically last or what determines stage duration. Different technologies and organizational contexts may vary widely.
• Individual versus organizational adoption: The model emphasizes organizational implementation but provides limited guidance on managing individual user adoption variation.
• Limited attention to implementation failure recovery: The model describes stage progression but provides limited guidance on recovering from implementation problems or stage failures.
• Organizational context factors under-specified: While the model identifies stages, it provides limited guidance on how organizational characteristics influence stage progression.
• Technology type variation: Different technology types (enterprise systems, software, infrastructure) may require modified implementation approaches not fully addressed in the model.
• Measurement challenges: Identifying which stage implementation is at and defining stage boundaries for empirical measurement remains challenging.

Key Contributions

• Distinguished adoption from implementation: Argued that technology adoption (the decision to use a technology) and implementation (integration into operations and realization of benefits) are distinct processes requiring different management approaches.
• Articulated a stage-based implementation framework:Applied the six-stage implementation model from Kwon & Zmud (1987) (Initiation, Adoption, Adaptation, Acceptance, Routinization, Infusion) to the IT implementation context.
• Identified stage-specific challenges: Proposed that different implementation stages present different organizational challenges and require different management responses.
• Integrated change management with technology implementation: Emphasized that implementation success depends on organizational change management, not just technical competence.
• Explained implementation outcomes variation: Provided framework for understanding why technology implementations succeed in some organizations and fail in others.
• Provided a practitioner-relevant framework: Offered a structure practitioners could use to assess implementation progress and apply stage-appropriate interventions.
• Foundation for implementation research: Created structure enabling empirical research examining implementation success factors and implementation best practices.

Internal Validity

Cooper & Zmud (1990) report an empirical MRP-adoption study used to illustrate the implementation process. As a conceptual paper anchored in one survey rather than a broad validation study, considerations typically raised about its internal consistency include:

• Integration of established change theories:The model successfully integrates Lewin’s change management framework and Rogers’ diffusion theory, combining established change theory foundations.
• Consistency with observed implementation patterns: The six stages reflect observable patterns in technology implementations: problem recognition, formal adoption, technical installation, user acceptance, operational integration, and strategic leverage.
• Addresses documented implementation challenges: The model explains well-documented patterns: why implementations frequently encounter user resistance (acceptance stage challenges), why systems are installed but underutilized (acceptance/routinization gap), and why implementation timelines exceed expectations.
• Distinguishes meaningful process phases: The six stages represent meaningfully distinct organizational phases. Progression from one stage to the next requires distinct activities and organizational changes.
• Empirical validation: Subsequent research confirmed implementation stage framework through studies of actual technology implementations.
• Practical relevance: The framework aligns with actual implementation practices observed in organizations and has enabled practitioners to manage implementations more effectively.

External Validity

External validity considerations concern generalizability of the Six-Stage Implementation Model across diverse technologies and organizational contexts:

• Cross-technology applicability: Subsequent research has applied the model to diverse technologies including enterprise resource planning systems, customer relationship management systems, business intelligence systems, and cloud computing, demonstrating broad applicability.
• Cross-organizational applicability: The model has been applied across small businesses, large enterprises, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies, suggesting broad organizational applicability.
• Cross-industry applicability: The model has been applied to manufacturing, services, healthcare, finance, retail, education, and government, suggesting broad industry applicability.
• Technology type variation: Different technology types (enterprise systems, individual productivity tools, infrastructure technologies) may progress through stages differently or with different typical durations.
• Organizational context variation: Organizational size, resources, innovation maturity, and prior technology experience may influence implementation stage progression speed and challenges.
• Individual adoption variation: The model emphasizes organizational implementation but underspecifies individual adoption variation within organizations, where different employees progress through adoption stages at different rates.
• Geographic and cultural variation: Organizational cultures and national contexts may influence implementation approaches and challenges, though research explicitly examining cultural variation is limited.
• Sequential assumption limitations: Implementation may not follow strictly sequential stages in all contexts. Some organizations may iterate, cycle back, or pursue parallel implementations in ways the model does not fully capture.

Relevance to Technology Adoption

The Six-Stage Implementation Model directly explains how organizations move from technology adoption decisions to actual technology use and benefit realization. While technology adoption addresses the decision to use a technology, implementation addresses the process of integrating technology into operations. The model predicts that organizations progressing successfully through all six stages realize greater technology benefits than organizations stalling at early stages. Organizations failing to complete the acceptance stage may implement the technology but experience low utilization and limited benefit realization. Organizations reaching infusion stage leverage technology capabilities strategically to enhance competitiveness.

Barriers to Technology Implementation Identified

• Inadequate initiation stage preparation: Insufficient problem/opportunity definition or weak executive sponsorship creates foundation weakness affecting all subsequent stages.
• Rushed adoption decisions: Inadequate planning or premature resource commitment without detailed requirements definition creates implementation problems.
• Technical adaptation problems: Poor system design, inadequate customization, or data conversion failures delay progression through adaptation stage.
• User acceptance resistance: Insufficient training, poor change management, or user concerns about technology interrupt progression through acceptance stage.
• Organizational implementation gap: Organizations achieve technical implementation but fail to implement organizational changes required for effective technology use.
• Inadequate support structures: Poor training, inadequate support staff, or ineffective communication reduce user acceptance and slow implementation progression.
• Stalled routinization: Failure to transition from intensive implementation project to normal operational support can slow progression to routinization stage.
• Limited infusion realization: Organizations may achieve operational implementation but fail to leverage technology strategically to achieve transformational benefits.

Leadership Actions the Framework Prescribes

• Invest in initiation stage: Clearly define problem/opportunity, secure executive sponsorship, ensure adequate resource commitment before proceeding to adoption decisions.
• Conduct thorough adoption planning: Conduct detailed requirements analysis, select appropriate technology vendor, develop comprehensive implementation plan with realistic timeline and budget.
• Allocate technical resources: Ensure competent technical team for system installation, configuration, testing. Build in time for problem resolution and system optimization.
• Implement change management: Prepare for acceptance stage through training, communication, support structures, and user involvement. Recognize this as highest-risk implementation stage.
• Transition to operational support: Plan transition from intensive implementation project to normal operational support. Build support capacity for ongoing system maintenance and enhancement.
• Enable continuous improvement: Establish mechanisms for performance monitoring, user feedback, and ongoing optimization in routinization stage.
• Pursue strategic leverage: Plan for infusion stage by identifying process optimization opportunities and strategic technology leverage enabling competitive advantage.
• Avoid stage rushing: Recognize that each stage requires adequate time and focus. Rushing through stages increases failure risk.

Following Models or Theories

The Six-Stage Implementation Model has been extended and adapted in subsequent research on technology implementation and change management:

• Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Implementation Research (Markus & Tanis, 2000; Ross & Vitale, 2000): Applied implementation stage framework to complex ERP systems, examining how ERP implementations progress through stages and identifying stage-specific challenges.
• Business Process Reengineering and Implementation (Hammer, 1990; Davenport, 1993): Extended implementation framework to address organizational process change accompanying technology implementation.
• Organizational Change Management Models (Kotter, 1995; Prosci, 2012): Developed detailed change management approaches supporting implementation stage progression.
• Systems Implementation Success Models (DeLone & McLean, 1992, 2003): Examined factors predicting implementation success and user satisfaction across implementation stages.
• Technology Adoption and Adaptation Models (Weill & Broadbent, 1998; Leonard-Barton, 1988): Extended implementation framework to examine how organizations adapt technologies and technologies adapt organizations.
• Implementation in Specific Domains (Healthcare IT, Financial Systems, Supply Chain Technology): Applied stage framework to domain-specific implementations examining how domain characteristics influence implementation approaches.
• Sociotechnical Systems Approach to Implementation (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977; Cowan, 1995): Integrated technical and social dimensions of implementation, emphasizing that implementation success requires attending to both.
• Digital Transformation Implementation Models: Applied implementation framework to organizational digital transformation, examining how organizations progress through digital capability maturity stages.

References

1. Cooper, R. B., & Zmud, R. W. (1990). Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Science, 36(2), 123-139.
2. Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.
3. Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.
4. Ginzberg, M. J. (1981). Early diagnosis of MIS implementation failure. Management Science, 27(4), 459-478.
5. Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251-267.
6. Markus, M. L., & Tanis, C. (2000). The enterprise system experience. InFraming the domains of IT management (pp. 173-207). Pinnaflex Educational Resources.
7. DeLone, W. H., & McLean, E. R. (1992). Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 60-95.
8. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
9. Ross, J. W., & Vitale, M. R. (2000). The ERP revolution: Surviving vs. thriving.Information Systems Frontiers, 2(2), 233-241.
10. Bostrom, R. P., & Heinen, J. S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17-32.

Further Reading

1. Kwon, T. H., & Zmud, R. W. (1987). Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation. In R. J. Boland & R. A. Hirschheim (Eds.), Critical Issues in Information Systems Research (pp. 227-251). John Wiley. Primary source for the six-stage model applied by Cooper & Zmud (1990).
2. Zmud, R. W., & Apple, L. E. (1989). Measuring information technology infusion. (Unpublished working paper, cited by Cooper & Zmud 1990 for the post-adoption behaviors portion of the six-stage model.)
3. Lewin, K. (1952). Group decision and social change. In G. E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. Henry Holt. (Source of the unfreezing-changing-refreezing model Cooper & Zmud 1990 map the six stages onto, p. 124.)
4. Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). Free Press.
5. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008. (Contemporary but independent individual-level adoption framework; not cited by Cooper & Zmud 1990 as a precursor.)

Series Navigation