JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
The Evaluation Model for Interior Design Organizational Technology Integration: The quality of the design aid and economic evidence and factors
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
The Evaluation Model for Interior Design Organizational Technology Integration: The quality of the design aid and economic evidence and factors
Choi, Seung-Pok;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Technological substitution is the process by which a radical technology replaces the dominant technology in an industry. The processes of diffusion and substitution have been modeled extensively (Technology & innovation, 2010). However, the formulation of classical quantitative models encompasses only part of the theoretical space. These models impose many simplified constraints to the achievement of analytical resolution. The interior design organization needs to establish a set of technical system requirements by describing the scope of the accessibility needs of the organization against current technology use. Because of complicated design resources and ongoing advances in design technologies, design systems face the challenge of prioritizing new technologies for supporting. The problem is small design organization administration often displays a lack of concern toward the evaluation of technology integration. In this paper, I will identify the influence of a design organization's technology, and predict how future technology will inform, support, and potentially hinder productivity, culture, and work satisfaction within a design organization in the industry. In addition, I will use current design organizational behavior and leadership models to support my predictions. Finally, I will examine a proven approach to assist designers with evaluating technology integration in interior design organization. The goal is to develop a high quality, professional development scorecards for the evaluation. I will conduct both the evaluation of technology integration and CRM performance evaluation is recommended to assess the effectiveness of technology integration. Therefore, the evaluation of integration technologies oriented design hold the promise of solving the organization application integration challenge. The evaluation of integration technology is a significant pattern for processing such a vision. The careful selection of an integration technology for this purpose is crucial in contributing toward the success of such an interior design organization endeavor.
 Keywords
Evaluation of integration technology;Interior design organization;design organizational behavior;
 Language
English
 Cited by
 References
1.
Abdullah, S., & Al-Mudimigh. (2009). CRM scorecard-based management system: Performance evaluation of Saudi Arabian banks. Journal of Digital Asset Management, 5, p. 347 - 351. crossref(new window)

2.
Ahuja, Vandana, Medury, & Yajulu, (2010). Corporate blogs as e-CRM tools - Building consumer engagement through content management. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 17(2), p. 91-105 crossref(new window)

3.
Alkhateeb, F. M., Khanfar, N. M., & Loudon, D. (2010). Physicians' Adoption of Pharmaceutical E-Detailing: Application of Rogers' Innovation-Diffusion Model. Services Marketing Quarterly, 31(1), 116-132. doi:10.1080/15332960903408575

4.
Ann, E., Kara, D., & Diane, y. (2009). Peer coaching and technology integration: an evaluation of the Microsoft peer coaching program. Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, 17(1), p. 83-102 crossref(new window)

5.
Anna, L., & Ian, G. (2005). Process and Criteria for Evaluating Services-Based Integration Technologies. Architecture Journal. Retrieved October 23, 2011 from http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa480046.aspx

6.
Ashforth, B., Kreiner, G., & Fugate, M. (2000). All in a day's work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review, 25, p. 472-491.

7.
Bansal, S. (2009). Technology Scorecards: Aligning IT Investments with Business Performance, (1st ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley

8.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2010). USER EXPRESSSIONS TRANSLATED INTO REQUIREMENTS. Human Technology, 6(2), 212-229. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on October 21, 2011.

9.
Blanchard, K. (1991). The One Minute Manager. New York: William Morrow

10.
Clark, S. (2000). Work-family border theory: A new theory of work-family balance. Human Relations, 53, p. 747-770. crossref(new window)

11.
Cochrane, M. (2009, May 1). The Big Picture: Industry convergence mandates a holistic BI and performance management approach Information Management., 19(4), 38.

12.
Cody, B. (2002). Technical Management with Situational Leadership. The Arrington Group, Inc. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://The-Arrington-Group.com

13.
Corcoran, C. K., & Cotter, R. D., (2000). Client advocacy: Client-centric approach to technology and related services. Proposed paper for conference presentation at Educause 2000. Available on line: http://www.msu.edu/-corcora1 /edprop2000.html.

14.
Deal, J. (1999). Workplace Atmosphere: the Ultimate Coporate Advantage? Healthy Workplace. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f99/Papers/gunasegaram.html

15.
Eddy, D (2009). Health technology assessment and evidence-based medicine: what are we talking about? Value in Health, 12(2). p. 6-7.

16.
Greer, T. (1999). Intranets: Changing Corporate Culture, Microsoft TechNet, Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://www.microsoft.com/technet/intranet/corpcult.htm

17.
Hitt, M.A., Freeman, R. E, Harrison, J. S. (Eds) (2001) Handbook of Strategic Management. Massachusetts: Blackwell Business

18.
Marla, R. (1999). The effects of new technology on corporate culture. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f99/Papers/gunasegaram.html

19.
Master Class, (1999).CIO Enterprise Magazine, Retrieved September 29, 2011 from http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f99/Papers/gunasegaram.html

20.
McLaughlin, S. (2009). The imperatives of e-business: Case study of a failed project. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(1), 40-49.

21.
Meux. (2011). Expanding on the basics. The impact of technology on organizations. Retrieved from UOPX On-line Classroom on September 19, 2011.

22.
Melitski, J., Gavin, D., & Gavin, J. (2010). TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONS. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior (PrAcademics Press), 13(4), 546-568. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on September 28, 2011.

23.
Merle, B. (2009). BIM's Effect on Design Culture. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://www.di.net/articles/archive/bims_effect_on_design_culture/

24.
Noack, D. (1999). Nearly a Third of Firms Monitor Workers Online, APB Online. Retrieved September 28, 2011 from http://besser.tsoa.nyu.edu/impact/f99/Papers/gunasegaram.html

25.
Ofra, G., Paul, H., Giora, K., & Orna, T. (2010). Health Technology Prioritisation: Which criteria for prioritizing new technologies, and what are their relative weights? University of Otago Economics Discussion Papers, 1006, p. 1-20

26.
Parsons, S., Daniels, H., Porter, J., & Robertson, C. (2006). Resources, staff beliefs and organizational culture: Factors in the use of information and communication technology for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal for Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(), 19-33.

27.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.
Richie, M., Vesna, P., & Anne, H. (2010). Culture-orientated Product Design. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from http://www.sd.polyu.edu.hk/iasdr/proceeding/papers/culture-orientated%20product%20design.pdf.

29.
Sabik, L., & Lie, R. (2008). Priority setting in health care: lessons from the experiences of eight countries. International Journal for Equity in Health, 7(4).

30.
Shane, S. A. (2009). Technology strategy for managers and entrepreneurs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

31.
Simon, L. A. K., (2000, Spring). Touching the Future. New Educator, 6 (1).

32.
Strong, D. M., & Volkoff, O. (2010). Understanding organization - enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quarterly, 34(4), p. 731-756.

33.
Talebi, K. (2009). Reconciling entrepreneurial culture with knowledge management and organizational learning. PWASET, 3(7), p. 496-500.

34.
Tanya, G., & Dale, Y. (2005). Workplace Surveillance and Employee Privacy: Implementing an Effective Computer Use Policy. Communications of the IIMA, 5(2), p. 57-66

35.
Elaine, D. & Margaret, O. (2011). Customer Relationship Management and Higher Education -A Vision. Advances in Management, 4(3), 18-20. Retrieved from EBSCOhost on October 22, 2011.

36.
Technology & innovation management: Conference Paper Abstracts. (2010). Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1-103. doi:.5465/AMBPP.2010.54509556

37.
The Impact of IT on Organizations. (2011). Retrieved September 27, 2011 from http://www.skyrme.com/insights/5itorg.htm

38.
Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. (2005) Managing innovations: Integrating technological market and organizational change. (3rd ed.). New Jersey, John H. Wiley & Sons

39.
University of Phoenix. (2011). Week 5 lecture: Forecasting Change and Behavior in Organizations. Retrieved September 30, 2011 from University of Phoenix, Org/726