A Primer in Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Roger Clarke

Principal, Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, Canberra

Visiting Fellow, Department of Computer Science, Australian National University

Notes of May 1991, revised May 1994, 26 September 1999

© Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 1991, 1994, 1998, 1999

This document is at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/InnDiff.html

A companion document is at http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/SOS/InnDiffISW.html

Some inventions 'take the world by storm' (archetype: the Sony Walkman).

Others seem to fail, lie dormant for decades, but when 'their time has come', their use grows quickly, even explosively (archetype: the fax machine).

Most achieve slow penetration at first, then their adoption grows more quickly, but later slows down again.

A broad social psychological / sociological theory called Diffusion of Innovations (DoI) Theory purports to describe the patterns of adoption, explain the mechanism, and assist in predicting whether and how a new invention will be successful. It is expressed in Rogers E.M. 'Diffusion of Innovations' The Free Press, New York, originally published in 1962, 3rd Edition 1983.

The theory has potential application to information technology ideas, artefacts and techniques, and has been used as the theoretical basis for a number of IS research projects. This document provides a brief overview of the elements of the theory, intended as preparation for a reading of the relevant IS literature.

DoI Theory is concerned with the manner in which a new technological idea, artefact or technique, or a new use of an old one, migrates from creation to use. According to DoI theory, technological innovation is communicated through particular channels, over time, among the members of a social system.

The stages through which a technological innovation passes are:

• knowledge (exposure to its existence, and understanding of its functions);
• persuasion (the forming of a favourable attitude to it);
• decision (commitment to its adoption);
• implementation (putting it to use); and
• confirmation (reinforcement based on positive outcomes from it).

Early knowers generally are more highly educated, have higher social status, are more open to both mass media and interpersonal channels of communication, and have more contact with change agents. Mass media channels are relatively more important at the knowledge stage, whereas interpersonal channels are relatively more important at the persuasion stage.

Innovation decisions may be optional (where the person or organisation has a real opportunity to adopt or reject the idea), collective (where a decision is reached by consensus among the members of a system), or authority-based (where a decision is imposed by another person or organisation which possesses requisite power, status or technical expertise).

Important characteristics of an innovation include:

• relative advantage (the degree to which it is perceived to be better than what it supersedes);
• compatibility (consistency with existing values, past experiences and needs);
• complexity (difficulty of understanding and use);
• trialability (the degree to which itcan be experimented with on a limited basis);
• observability (the visibility of its results).

Different adopter categories are identified as:

• innovators (venturesome);
• early adopters (respectable);
• early majority (deliberate);
• late majority (sceptical);
• laggards (traditional).

Earlier adopting individuals tend not to be different in age, but to have more years of education, higher social status and upward social mobility, be in larger organisations, have greater empathy, less dogmatism, a greater ability to deal with abstractions, greater rationality, greater intelligence, a greater ability to cope with uncertainty and risk, higher aspirations, more contact with other people, greater exposure to both mass media and interpersonal communications channels and engage in more active information seeking.

Important roles in the innovation process include:

• opinion leaders (who have relatively frequent informal influence over the behaviour of others);
• change agents (who positively influence innovation decisions, by mediating between the change agency and the relevant social system);
• change aides (who complement the change agent, by having more intensive contact with clients, and who have less competence credibility but more safety or trustworthiness credibility).

The change agent functions are:

• to develop a need for change on the part of the client;
• to establish an information-exchange relationship;
• to diagnose the client problems;
• to create intent to change in the client;
• to translate this intent into action;
• to stabilise adoption and prevent discontinuance; and
• to shift the client from reliance on the change agent to self-reliance.

DoI Theory is at its best as a descriptive tool, less strong in its explanatory power, and less useful still in predicting outcomes, and providing guidance as to how to accelerate the rate of adoption. There is doubt about the extent to which it can give rise to readily refutable hypotheses. Many of its elements may be specific to the culture in which it was derived (viz. North America in the 1950s and 60s), and hence less relevant in, for example, East Asian and African countries, and as time goes on.

Nonetheless, it provides one valuable 'hook' on which research and practice can be hung.

I also offer a resources page on the topic.

Navigation

Go to Roger's Home Page.

Go to the contents-page for this segment.

Send an email to Roger

Created: 19 November 1998

Last Amended: 26 September 1999

These community service pages are a joint offering of the Australian National University (which provides the infrastructure), and Roger Clarke (who provides the content).