Stages of Growth Model - Criticism

Criticism

An argument posed dealt with the main focus on the change in budget, and whether it is “reasonable to assume that a single variable serves as a suitable surrogate for so much.” It seems logical that this single variable could be an indicator of other variables such as the organizational environment or an organization's learning curve, but not that it is the sole driving force of the entire model. Nolan shows little connection that would make his initial point a valid one.

In his model, Richard Nolan states that the force behind the growth of computing through the stages is technological change. King and Kramer find this to be far too general as they say, “there are additional factors that should be considered. Most important are the "demand-side" factors that create a ripe environment for technological changes to be considered and adopted.” As proposed, technological change has a multitude of facets that determine its necessity. Change cannot be brought forth unless it is needed under certain circumstances. Unwarranted change would result in excess costs and potential failure of the process.

Last, the stages of growth model assumes straightforward organizational goals that are to be determined through the technological change. This can be viewed as very naïve from the user perspective. King and Kraemer state, “the question of whether organizational goals are uniform and consistent guides for the behavior of organizational actors, as opposed to dynamic and changing targets that result from competition and conflict among organizational actors, has received considerable attention in the literature on computing.” Clearly, organizational goals are ever changing and sometimes rigid indicators of direction. They cannot be “uniform” objectives that are not subject to change.