Factors Influencing Diffusion Strategy
A theory called diffusion of innovations aims to explain how, why, and how quickly new ideas and technologies spread. The notion was popularised by communication studies professor Everett Rogers in his 1962 book Diffusion of Innovations, which is now in its fifth edition (2003). According to Rogers, the process of diffusion is how an invention spreads through time among the members of a social system. The spread of innovations hypothesis has several different, cross-disciplinary antecedents.
According to Rogers, the invention itself, communication channels, time, and a social structure are the four key factors that affect how quickly a new idea spreads. This procedure is very reliant on human resources. To perpetuate itself, the invention has to be extensively used. There comes a moment when an invention hits critical mass within the pace of adoption.
Innovators, early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards are the different types of adopters. Diffusion takes several forms and is greatly influenced by the types of adopters and the innovation-decision process. Innovativeness, which is characterised as the extent to which a person adopts a new concept, serves as the criteria for the adopter category.
The French sociologist Gabriel Tarde and German and Austrian anthropologists and geographers like Friedrich Ratzel and Leo Frobenius were among the first to study the idea of dispersion in the late 19th century. In the 1920s and 1930s, the area of rural sociology in the midwestern United States had a boom in the study of innovation dissemination. As agricultural technology developed quickly, experts began to look at how independent farmers were using hybrid seeds, tools, and practises.
Ryan and Gross’s (1943) research of the acceptance of hybrid corn seed in Iowa consolidated earlier work on diffusion into a separate paradigm that would go on to be often referenced in the future. Diffusion of Innovations has been used in a variety of contexts since it was first introduced to rural sociology, including medical sociology, communications, marketing, development studies, health promotion, organisational studies, knowledge management, conservation biology, and complexity studies.
It has had a significant influence on how people use medications, medical procedures, and health communications. H. Earl Pemberton developed the fundamental epidemiological or internal-influence type of organisational research using examples like postage stamps and uniform school ethical policies.
The groundbreaking book Diffusion of Innovations was released in 1962 by rural sociology professor Everett Rogers. The original domains that informed the idea were anthropology, early sociology, rural sociology, education, industrial sociology, and medical sociology. Rogers combined data from over 508 diffusion studies in these areas. Rogers developed a hypothesis of how innovations are adopted by people and organisations using his synthesis. One of the works by Rogers that is often mentioned in diffusion research is Diffusion of Innovations. Even though the topic has branched out into and been inspired by other scientific fields like social network analysis and communication, his approaches are closely followed in current diffusion research.
Innovations’ characteristics
Numerous inventions’ qualities have been studied. Several traits that are shared by the majority of research have been uncovered via meta-reviews. These are consistent with the qualities that Rogers listed in his assessments at first.
Potential adopters assess an innovation based on its relative advantage (the perceived efficiency gains compared to existing tools or procedures), compatibility with the existing system, complexity or learning curve, trialability or testability, potential for reinvention (using the tool for initially unintended purposes), and observed effects. These characteristics interact and are assessed collectively. For instance, an invention can be exceedingly difficult, which lowers the probability that it would be accepted and spread, but it might also be very compatible with a significant benefit over existing technologies. Potential adopters may nonetheless use the invention despite the steep learning curve.
Other aspects of inventions have also been identified by studies, although they are less typical than the ones Rogers has mentioned. The innovation’s adoption may be impacted by the innovation’s hazy limits. It is simpler to embrace inventions that have a small core and a vast peripheral. Less hazardous innovations are simpler to embrace since the potential damage from a failure integration is less.
Even when they provide a significant relative benefit, innovations that disturb everyday chores may not be accepted due to the increased volatility. Similarly, inventions that simplify activities are more likely to be embraced. Knowledge requirements, which are closely connected to relative complexity, are the ability barrier to use created by the innovation’s difficulties. The likelihood of adoption may be increased even when there are strict knowledge requirements with the help of previous adopters or other sources.
Personal traits of each adopter
Adopters have characteristics that influence their propensity to embrace innovations, just as innovations do. Numerous distinct personality qualities have been investigated for their effects on adoption, but results have been mixed. A prospective adopter’s propensity to accept an invention is significantly influenced by their ability and motivation, which vary depending on the context in contrast to personality qualities. Unsurprisingly, those who are driven to accept an invention are more likely to make the necessary modifications.
The significance of an invention may have an effect on motivation; innovations might have symbolic value that promotes (or inhibits) adoption. The concept of a prospective adopter’s overall connection to the large community represented by a metropolis was first put out by Ryan and Gross (1943). Potential adopters are more likely to use an invention if they often visit urban regions. Finally, individuals who have the ability to affect change, especially inside organisations, are more inclined to accept innovations than those who have less control over their own destiny.
Organizational characteristics
Since organisations are both the sum of its constituent parts and their own system with a set of rules and processes, they must deal with more complicated adoption possibilities. Three organisational traits—tension for change (motivation and aptitude), innovation-system fit (compatibility), and evaluation of implications—correspond strongly to the aforementioned individual traits (observability). A tension for change may put strain on organisations.
If the situation facing the company seems hopeless, it will be inspired to embrace an innovation to turn things around. Within each of its constituent parts, this tension often manifests. Innovations that are compatible with the organization’s current system are simpler to evaluate, involve fewer coincidental modifications, and are more likely to be implemented. Additionally, the company is under pressure from its external environment, which is often an industry, community, or economy. An organisation is more likely to accept an invention when it is permeating the atmosphere of the company for whatever reason. Intentional dissemination of innovations, such as that caused by governmental mandate or command, is also likely to happen swiftly.