When AI Adoption Constraints Interact: Organizational Responses and Adoption Trajectories in Tunisian Telecommunications

Purpose – This study examines how technological, organizational and environmental constraints may interact during organizational artificial intelligence (AI) adoption and how firms respond to these interdependencies in the telecommunications sector.
Design/methodology/approach – The study draws on 17 semi-structured interviews with managers and professionals directly involved in AI initiatives across three Tunisian telecommunications operators. An abductive thematic analysis combined open coding, the Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework as a sensitizing device, relational coding, and within-case and cross-case comparison. Analytical matrices distinguished participant-stated linkages, process reconstruction and researcher inference.
Findings – The analysis identifies four recurrent but non-systematic mechanisms. First, some constraints may propagate across TOE domains, as capability shortages affect data preparation, model reliability and business trust. Second, some environmental pressures become consequential through their translation into internal technological and organizational requirements. Third, some organizational responses may mitigate an initial constraint while generating or intensifying secondary dependencies, costs or coordination burdens. Fourth, the projects examined followed differentiated adoption trajectories, including scaling, partial deployment, prolonged implementation and non-scaling.
Originality/value – The study develops a relational and conditional interpretation of TOE by shifting attention from isolated adoption factors to cross-domain propagation, the potential secondary effects of organizational responses and evolving adoption trajectories.
Practical implications – Managers should diagnose chains of constraints rather than isolated barriers and assess the possible secondary consequences of mitigation actions before scaling AI initiatives. Stage-specific assessments of data readiness, integration, governance, maintainability and business viability remain important in regulated, infrastructure-intensive organizations operating under resource constraints

Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework, AI readiness, digital transformation, technology implementation, emerging economy

1. Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organization–environment framework. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.), Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital Society, Vol. 1 (pp. 231–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_12 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Baabdullah, A. M. (2021). Understanding AI adoption in manufacturing and production firms using an integrated TAM–TOE model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 170, 120880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120880 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Chen, H., Li, L., & Chen, Y. (2021). Explore success factors that impact artificial intelligence adoption on telecom industry in China. Journal of Management Analytics, 8(1), 36–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2020.1852895 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chidlow, A., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2014). Translation in cross-language international business research: Beyond equivalence. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(5), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.67 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Golden, B. R. (1992). The past is the past—or is it? The use of retrospective accounts as indicators of past strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 35(4), 848–860. https://doi.org/10.5465/256318 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309343469 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Horani, O. M., Al-Adwan, A. S., Yaseen, H., Hmoud, H., Al-Rahmi, W. M., & Alkhalifah, A. (2025). The critical determinants impacting artificial intelligence adoption at the organizational level. Information Development, 41(3), 1055–1079. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231166889 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jöhnk, J., Weißert, M., & Wyrtki, K. (2021). Ready or Not, AI Comes—An interview study of organizational AI readiness factors. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00676-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kallio, H., Pietilä, A.-M., Johnson, M., & Kangasniemi, M. (2016). Systematic methodological review: Developing a framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 72(12), 2954–2965. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753–1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Mikalef, P., & Gupta, M. (2021). Artificial intelligence capability: Conceptualization, measurement calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm performance. Information & Management, 58(3), 103434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2021.103434 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1991.4279002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. Harper & Row. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automation–augmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Shenton, A. K. (2004). Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Education for Information, 22(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3233/EFI-2004-22201 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The Processes of Technological Innovation. Lexington Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Uren, V., & Edwards, J. S. (2023). Technology readiness and the organizational journey towards AI adoption: An empirical study. International Journal of Information Management, 68, 102588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102588 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Wong, D. T. W., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2025). Impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on operational performance: The role of dynamic capabilities. Information & Management, 62(6), 104162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2025.104162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Yang, J., Blount, Y., & Amrollahi, A. (2024). Artificial intelligence adoption in a professional service industry: A multiple case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 201, 123251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123251 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Impact of AI Tools on Student Learning
• Repogent: An Autonomous Multi-Agent System for End-To-End Repository Maintenance
• Trust-Centric Federated Learning Using Blockchain-Enabled Smart Contracts: An Analysis of Data Privacy, Model Integrity, and Decentralized AI Governance
• Can AI Care? Rethinking Ethics, Clinical Integrity, and Professional Responsibility in the Digital Age of Mental Healthcare
• AI-Based Smart Irrigation System Using IoT and Machine Learning for Precision Agriculture