Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationships between need-pull/technology-push and information security management and the moderating role of regulatory pressure

  • Published:
Information Technology and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Information security management (ISM) has become more important than ever, as the expansion of corporate information systems and the use of networks continue to increase. Many organizations consider ISM an important part of organizational innovation and key to strategic and operational efficiency. Managers require a firm understanding of the behavioral aspect of ISM, particularly of how their firms’ internal and external characteristics affect the ISM process. This study draws on need-pull–technology-push (NP–TP) theories and employs data on information security users to investigate the NP and TP factors influencing the awareness, development, and performance stages of ISM. This study also examines the moderating role of regulatory pressure in those relationships. The research model is tested with data taken from a random sample of global organizations obtained through the Korea Composite Stock Price Index, the Korean Securities Dealers Automated Quotation, and the Korea Foreign Company Association. The results indicate that all NP–TP variables had positive effects on the ISM process (with the exception of perceived benefits). Moreover, regulatory pressure had positive effects as a moderator between ISM awareness and ISM development and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson DL, Agarwal R (2010) Practicing safe computing: a multimethod empirical examination of home computer user security behavioral intentions. MIS Q 34(3):613–643

    Google Scholar 

  2. Appari A, Johnson ME (2009) HIPAA compliance: an institutional theory perspective. In: AMCIS 2009 proceedings

  3. Babatunde DA, Selamat MH (2012) Investigating information security management and its influencing factors in the Nigerian banking industry: a conceptual model. Int J Soc Sci Econ Art 2(2):55–59

    Google Scholar 

  4. Baker WH, Wallace L (2007) Is information security under control? IEEE Secur Priv 5(1):36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barua A, Konana P, Whinston AB, Yin F (2004) An empirical investigation of net-enabled business value: an exploratory investigation. MIS Q 28(4):585–620

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bassellier G, Benbasat I (2004) Business competence of information technology professionals: conceptual development and influence on IT–business partnerships. MIS Q 28(4):673–694

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brandon DP, Hollingshead AB (2004) Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organ Sci 15(6):633–644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brown CV, Sambamurthy V (2001) Coordination theory in the context of the IT function: linking the logic of governance and coordination mechanisms. University of Maryland Working Paper

  10. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1993) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 136–162

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bulgurcu B, Cavusoglu H, Benbasat I (2010) Information security policy compliance: an empirical study of rationality-based beliefs and information security awareness. MIS Q 34(3):523–548

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carmines EG, McIver JP (1981) Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In: Bohrnstedt GW, Borgatta EF (eds) Social measurement: current issues. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 65–115

    Google Scholar 

  13. Chang SE, Ho CB (2006) Organizational factors to the effectiveness of implementing information security management. Ind Manag Data Syst 106(3):345–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chatterjee D, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2002) Shaping up for e-commerce: institutional enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies. MIS Q 26(2):65–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Chau PYK, Tam KY (1997) Factors affecting the adoption of open systems: an exploratory study. MIS Q 21(1):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Chau PYK, Tam KY (2000) Organizational adoption of open systems: a ‘technology-push, need-pull’ perspective. Inf Manag 37(5):229–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chidamber SR, Kon HB (1994) A research retrospective of innovation inception and success: the technology-push, demand-pull question. Int J Technol Manag 9(1):94–112

    Google Scholar 

  18. Chin W (1998) The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides GA (ed) Modern methods for business research. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 295–336

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cooper R, Zmud R (1990) Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach. Manag Sci 36(2):123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. D’Arcy J, Hovav A, Galletta D (2009) User awareness of security countermeasures and its impact on information systems misuse: a deterrence approach. Inf Syst Res 20(1):79–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dhillon G, Backhouse J (2000) Information system security management in the new millennium. Commun ACM 43(7):125–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am Sociol Rev 48(2):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dodge CR, Carver C, Ferguson JA (2007) Phishing for user security awareness. Comput Sci 26(1):73–80

    Google Scholar 

  25. Fichman RG (2004) Real options and IT platform adoption: implications for theory and practice. Inf Syst Res 15(2):132–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Flanagin AJ (2000) Social pressures on organizational website adoption. Hum Commun Res 26(4):618–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Furnell S (2008) End-user security culture: a lesson that will never be learnt? Comput Fraud Secur 2008(4):6–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Furnell SM, Gennatou M, Dowland PS (2002) A prototype tool for information security awareness and training. Logist Inf Manag 15(5/6):352–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Galliers R (2007) Strategizing for agility: confronting information systems inflexibility in dynamic environments. In: DeSouza K (ed) Agile information systems. Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier Inc, Burlington, pp 1–15

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grover V, Saeed KA (2007) The impact of product, market, and relationship characteristics on interorganizational system integration in manufacturer–supplier dyads. J Manag Inf Syst 23(4):185–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Grover V, Goslar MD (1993) The initiation, adoption, and implementation of telecommunications technologies in US organizations. J Manag Inf Syst 10(1):141–163

    Google Scholar 

  33. Guo KH, Yuan Y, Archer NP, Connelly CE (2011) Understanding nomnalicious security violations in the workplace: a composite behavior model. J Manag Inf Syst 28(2):203–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Han IG, Sun HK (1998) A case study on the information security management system for major Korean business groups. Asia Pac J Inf Syst 8(2):105–119

    Google Scholar 

  35. Ho CR, Chi YP, Tai YM (2005) A structural approach to measuring uncertainty in supply chains. Int J Electron Commer 9(3):91–114

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hsu C, Lee JN, Straub DW (2012) Institutional influences on information systems security innovations. Inf Syst Res 23(1):1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu Q, Hart P, Cooke D (2007) The role of external and internal influences on information systems security—a neo-institutional perspective. J Strateg Inf Syst 16(2):153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ives B, Olson MH (1984) User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Manag Sci 30(5):586–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Jung WJ, Shin Y, Lee SYT (2012) The behavioral attitude of financial firms’ employees on the customer information security in Korea. Asia Pac J Inf Syst 22(1):53–77

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kearns GS, Lederer AL (2004) The impact of industry contextual factors on IT focus and the use of IT for competitive advantage. Inf Manag 41(7):899–919

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Keller S, Powell A, Horstmann B, Predmore C, Crawford M (2005) Information security threats and practices in small business. Inf Syst Manag 22(2):7–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Khalifa M, Davison RM (2006) SME adoption of IT: the case of electronic trading systems. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 53(2):275–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kim HS (1999) A study on the quantification of information security level. Asia Pac J Inf Syst 9(4):181–201

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kim JK, Lee DH (2005) A research on information security risk-based antecedents influencing electronic commerce user’s trust. Asia Pac J Inf Syst 15(2):65–96

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kim S, Garrison G (2010) Understanding users’ behaviors regarding supply chain technology: determinants impacting the adoption and implementation of RFID technology in South Korea. Int J Inf Manag 30(5):388–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ko EJ, Kim SH, Kim MS, Woo JY (2008) Organizational characteristics and the CRM adoption process. J Bus Res 61(1):65–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Koo JM, Park JS, Park JH (2013) Study about the impact of information security systems on corporate performance: based on IT relatedness theory. Asia Pac J Inf Syst 23(4):129–149

    Google Scholar 

  48. Kuan KKY, Chau PYK (2001) A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Inf Manag 38(8):507–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Lee CP, Shim JP (2007) An exploratory study of radio frequency identification (RFID) adoption in the healthcare industry. Eur J Inf Syst 16(6):712–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lee Y, Kozar KA (2008) An empirical investigation of anti-spyware software adoption: a multitheoretical perspective. Inf Manag 45(2):109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee Y, Larsen KR (2009) Threat of coping appraisal: determinants of SMB executives’ decision to adopt anti-malware software. Eur J Inf Syst 18(2):177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Lewis W, Agarwal R, Sambamurthy V (2003) Sources of influence on beliefs about information technology use: an empirical study of knowledge workers. MIS Q 27(4):657–678

    Google Scholar 

  53. Li H, Zhang J, Sarathy R (2010) Understanding compliance with internet use policy from the perspective of rational choice theory. Decis Support Syst 48(4):635–645

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Liang H, Saraf N, Hu Q, Xue Y (2007) Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. MIS Q 31(1):59–87

    Google Scholar 

  55. Lu Y, Ramamurthy K (2011) Understanding the link between information technology capability and organizational agility: an empirical examination. MIS Q 35(4):931–954

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ma Q, Ratnasingam P (2008) Factors affecting the objectives of information security management. In: International conference on information resources management 2008 proceedings

  57. Markus ML, Mao JY (2004) Participation in development and implementation—updating an old, tired concept for today’s IS contexts. J Assoc Inf Syst 5(11–12):514–544

    Google Scholar 

  58. Mowery D, Rosenberg N (1979) The influence of market demand upon innovation: a critical review of some recent empirical studies. Res Pol 8(2):102–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Munro H, Noori H (1988) Measuring commitment to new manufacturing technology: integrating technological push and marketing pull concepts. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 35(2):63–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K (1995) The role of interorganizational and organizational factors on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems. Decis Sci 26(3):303–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rai A, Patnayakuni R (1996) A structural model for CASE adoption behavior. J Manag Inf Syst 13(2):205–234

    Google Scholar 

  63. Richardson R (2011) 2010/2011 CSI computer crime and security survey. Computer Security Institute, New york

  64. Rogelberg SG, Stanton JM (2007) Introduction: understanding and dealing with organizational survey nonresponses. Organ Res Methods 10(2):195–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  66. Schon DA (1967) Technology and change. Delacorte Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sharma R, Yetton P (2007) The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Q 31(2):219–238

    Google Scholar 

  68. Shih HP (2006) Technology-push and communication-pull forces driving message-based coordination performance. J Strateg Inf Syst 15(2):105–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Siponen MT (2001) Five dimensions of information security awareness. Comput Soc 31(2):24–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Son JY, Narasimhan S, Riggins F (2005) Effects of relational factors and channel climate on EDI usage in the customer–supplier relationship. J Manag Inf Syst 22(1):321–353

    Google Scholar 

  71. Spears JL, Barki H (2010) User participation in information systems security risk management. MIS Q 34(3):503–522

    Google Scholar 

  72. Templeton G, Lewis B, Snyder C (2002) Development of a measure for the organizational learning construct. J Manag Inf Syst 19(2):175–218

    Google Scholar 

  73. Teo HH, Wei KK, Benbasat I (2003) Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an institutional perspective. MIS Q 27(1):19–49

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wixom BH, Watson HJ (2001) An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Q 25(1):17–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Xue Y, Liang H, Boulton WR (2008) Information technology governance in information technology investment decision processes: the impact of investment characteristics, external environment, and internal context. MIS Q 32(1):67–96

    Google Scholar 

  76. Yildirim EY, Akalp G, Aytac S, Bayram N (2011) Factors influencing information security management in small-and medium-sized enterprises: a case study from Turkey. Int J Inf Manag 31(4):360–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Zaheer A, Zaheer S (1997) Catching the wave: alertness, responsiveness, and market influence in global electronic networks. Manag Sci 43(11):1493–1509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zhu K, Kraemer KL, Xu S (2006) The process of innovation assimilation by firms in different countries: a technology diffusion perspective on e-business. Manag Sci 52(10):1557–1576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zhu K, Dong S, Xu SX, Kraemer KL (2006) Innovation diffusion in global contexts: determinants of post-adoption digital transformation of European companies. Eur J Inf Syst 15(6):601–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zmud RW (1984) An examination of ‘push-pull’ theory applied to process innovation in knowledge work. Manag Sci 30(6):727–738

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Kyungpook National University A.S Research Fund, 2014. The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for all their suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University, 80 Daehak-Ro, Buk-Gu, Daegu, 702-701, South Korea

    Sanghyun Kim & Geuna Kim

  2. Anderson School of Management, MSC05 1, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, 87131-0001, USA

    Aaron M. French

Authors
  1. Sanghyun Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geuna Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aaron M. French
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sanghyun Kim.

Appendices

Appendix

See Table 6.

Table 6 Results of the Pilot Test
Full size table

Questionnaire

2.1 Market volatility

  • The level of competition between firms for security technologies and management is very high.

  • Our firm often faces increasing costs associated with security management.

  • Security technologies and management ability required for our business administration change frequently.

  • Security technologies and management are introduced to our firm on an increasingly shorter cycle.

2.2 Proactive IT stance

  • We constantly keep abreast of new IT systems.

  • We have the ability and continue to experiment with new IT systems when necessary.

  • We have a climate that is supportive of trying out new ways to use IT.

  • We constantly seek new ways to make more effective use of IT.

2.3 Task interdependence

  • We can perform our tasks fairly independently of others.

  • Our task is affected by the performance of other individuals or departments.

  • Our task requires frequent coordination with others.

  • Our task performance depends on receiving accurate information from others.

2.4 Perceived benefits

  • Information security management reduces error rates for data management in our firm.

  • Information security management is useful for improving our firm’s image.

  • Information security management reduces unnecessary costs for our firm.

  • Information security management enhances our firm’s work capacity and decision-making process.

2.5 Level of cooperation

  • We have established standard operating procedures (e.g., goals, policies, and plans) with our business partners.

  • We have established strategic planning processes with our business partners.

  • We have established a system of liaison roles with our business partners.

  • We have established task force teams with our business partners to promote crucial or emerging projects.

2.6 Partner interdependence

  • The sustainable maintenance of management relationships with business partners is crucial for achieving our firm’s business goals.

  • Our total revenue depends heavily on our trade with business partners.

  • The supply and service of our firm have considerable influence on our business partners’ achievement of their business goals.

  • Our business partners have substantial power over our firm.

2.7 Regulatory pressure

  • Our firm actively supports and follows ISM undertaken by security supervision authorities.

  • Our firm operates under pressure from ISM undertaken by security supervision authorities.

  • Security supervision authorities require our firm to review and investigate ISM.

  • Security supervision authorities strongly urge our firm to manage our general information security.

2.8 ISM awareness

  • Our firm has positive attitudes toward ISM.

  • Our firm intends to manage and invest in information security.

  • Our firm considers ISM as a crucial factor in the development and implementation of business strategies.

  • In our firm, all members understand the seriousness of information security.

  • Our firm is interested in ISM.

2.9 ISM development

  • Our firm engages in good monitoring practices in terms of information security.

  • In our firm, information system users comply with information security policies (e.g., duties and regulations).

  • Our firm invests more in personnel and technologies associated with ISM than before.

  • Our firm provides better education and training programs regarding ISM more frequently than before.

2.10 ISM performance

  • Our firm’s internal and external ability has increased because of our efforts to manage information security.

  • In our firm, duties and regulations concerning ISM have improved considerably.

  • Our firm realizes financial and nonfinancial benefits from ISM.

  • Our firm has favorable attitudes toward new systems and programs in terms of ISM.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, S., Kim, G. & French, A.M. Relationships between need-pull/technology-push and information security management and the moderating role of regulatory pressure. Inf Technol Manag 16, 173–192 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0217-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10799-015-0217-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation