INTERNATIONAL DAYS
January | February | March | April | May | June | July | August | September | October | November |December
Sunday, 28 July 2013
Tuesday, 23 July 2013
Innovation in Society
Les Robinson | Phone 0414 674 676 | Email les@enablingchange.com.au
Web www.enablingchange.com.au | Blog http://enablingchange.posterous.com
A summary of Diffusion of Innovations
Les Robinson Fully revised and rewritten Jan 2009
Diffusion of Innovations seeks to explain how innovations are taken
up in a population. An innovation is an idea, behaviour, or object
that is perceived as new by its audience.
Diffusion of Innovations offers three valuable insights into the
process of social change:
1. What qualities make an innovation spread successfully.
2. The importance of peer-peer conversations and peer networks.
3. Understanding the needs of different user segments.
These insights have been tested in more than 6000 research studies
and field tests, so they are amongst the most reliable in the social
sciences.
What qualities make innovations spread?
Diffusion of Innovations takes a radically different approach to most
other theories of change. Instead of focusing on persuading
individuals to change, it sees change as being primarily about the
evolution or “reinvention” of products and behaviours so they
become better fits for the needs of individuals and groups. In
Diffusion of Innovations it is not people who change, but the innovations themselves.
Why do certain innovations spread more quickly than others? And
why do others fail? Diffusion scholars recognise five qualities that
determine the success of an innovation.
1) Relative advantage
This is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as better than
the idea it supersedes by a particular group of users, measured in
terms that matter to those users, like economic advantage, social
prestige, convenience, or satisfaction. The greater the perceived
relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid its rate of
adoption is likely to be.
There are no absolute rules for what constitutes “relative
advantage”. It depends on the particular perceptions and needs of
the user group.*
2) Compatibility with existing values and practices
This is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being
consistent with the values, past experiences, and needs of potential
adopters. An idea that is incompatible with their values, norms or
practices will not be adopted as rapidly as an innovation that is
compatible.
3) Simplicity and ease of use
This is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to
understand and use. New ideas that are simpler to understand are
adopted more rapidly than innovations that require the adopter to
develop new skills and understandings.
4) Trialability
This is the degree to which an innovation can be experimented with
on a limited basis. An innovation that is trialable represents less
uncertainty to the individual who is considering it.
5) Observable results
The easier it is for individuals to see the results of an innovation,
the more likely they are to adopt it. Visible results lower uncertainty
and also stimulate peer discussion of a new idea, as friends and
neighbours of an adopter often request information about it.
According to Everett Rogers, these five qualities determine between
49 and 87 percent of the variation in the adoption of new products. 1
These five qualities make a valuable checklist to frame focus group
discussions or project evaluations. They can help identify
weaknesses to be addressed when improving products or
behaviours.
* I suspect, however, that three relative advantages are more influential than
others: personal control, time saving and self-esteem. See the paper at
Reinvention is a key principle in Diffusion of Innovations. The
success of an innovation depends on how well it evolves to meet
the needs of more and more demanding and risk-averse individuals
in a population (the history of the mobile phone is a perfect
example).
A good way to achieve this is to make users into partners in a
continuous process of redevelopment. Computer games companies,
pharmaceutical corporations and rural research institutes are
examples of organisations that seek to make users active partners
in improving innovations by supporting user communities or by
applying participative action research techniques.
Many computer games are now built with the intention that they
will be modified by enthusiastic users. Says consumer behaviour
expert, Francine Gardin. “They’re actually participating in the design
of the game. These consumers are really passionate about the
game – it’s almost like a cult. They have an incredible sense of
loyalty and ownership of that brand. Instead of complaining, they
fix the product.”2
The concept of reinvention is important because it tells us that no
product or process can rest on it’s laurels: continuous improvement
is the key to spreading an innovation.
The importance of peer-peer conversations and peer
networks
The second important insight is that impersonal marketing methods
like advertising and media stories may spread information about
new innovations, but it’s conversations that spread adoption.
Why? Because the adoption of new products or behaviours involves the management of risk and uncertainty. It’s usually only people we personally know and trust – and who we know have successfully adopted the innovation themselves – who can give us credible
reassurances that our attempts to change won’t result in embarrassment, humiliation, financial loss or wasted time.
Early adopters are the exception to this rule. They are on the lookout for advantages and tend to see the risks as low because they are financially more secure, more personally confident, and better informed about the particular product or behaviour. Often
they will grasp at innovations on the basis of no more than a well worded news article. The rest of the population, however, see higher risks in change, and therefore require assurance from trusted peers that an innovation is do-able and provides genuine benefits.
As an innovation spreads from early adopters to majority audiences,
face-to-face communication therefore becomes more essential to
the decision to adopt. This principle is embodied in the Bass
Forecasting Model (below), which illustrates how face-to-face
communication becomes more influential over time, and mass
media less influential.
Source: Mahajan, Muller and Bass (1990) as reproduced in Rogers, E.M.
(2003) p210.
The emphasis on peer-peer communication has led diffusion
scholars to be interested in peer networks. Many diffusion-style
campaigns now consciously attempt to utilise peer networks, for
instance by using Popular Opinion Leader techniques or various
“viral marketing” methods. These methods – which are becoming
increasingly popular – aim to recruit well-connected individuals to
spread new ideas through their own social networks.
Opinion leader tactics have been successful in raising the standards
of practice by medical doctors,3 promoting weatherisation of
homes,4 and encouraging safe sex in gay communities.5
Rogers notes that by 2003 there had been eight randomised
controlled trials – the gold standard in evaluation – all of which
demonstrated the success of opinion leader tactics in producing researchers believe that a population can be broken down
into five different segments, based on their propensity to adopt a
specific innovation: behavioural changes.
Understanding the needs of different user segments
Diffusion innovators, early adopters, early majorities, late
majorities and laggards.
Each group has its own “personality”, at least as far as its attitude
to a particular innovation goes.
When thinking about these groups, don’t imagine it’s your job to
shift people from one segment to another. It doesn’t work that way.
It’s best to think of the membership of each segment as static.
Innovations spread when they evolve to meet the needs of
successive segments.
Innovators: The adoption process begins with a tiny number of
visionary, imaginative innovators. They often lavish great time,
energy and creativity on developing new ideas and gadgets. And
they love to talk about them. Right now, they’re the ones busily
building stills to convert cooking oil into diesel fuel and making
websites to tell the world about it. Unfortunately their one-eyed
fixation on a new behaviour or gadget can make them seem
dangerously idealistic to the pragmatic majority. Yet no change
program can thrive without their energy and commitment.
How to work with innovators:
• Track them down and become their “first followers”†, providing
support and publicity for their ideas.
† See Derek Sivers’ entertaining Youtube clip on the subject of first followers. It’s
a very succinct and accurate insight into diffusion theory:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
• Invite keen innovators to be partners in designing your project.
Early adopters: Once the benefits start to become apparent, early
adopters leap in. They are on the lookout for a strategic leap forward in their lives or businesses and are quick to make connections between clever innovations and their personal needs. They love getting an advantage over their peers and they have time
and money to invest. They’re often fashion conscious and love to be seen as leaders: social prestige is one of their biggest drivers. Their natural desire to be trend setters causes the “take-off” of an innovation.
Early adopters tend to be more economically successful,
well connected and well informed and hence more socially
respected. Their seemingly risky plunge into a new activity sets
tongues wagging. Others watch to see whether they prosper of fail,
and people start talking about the results. And early adopters like
to talk about their successes. So the buzz intensifies. What early
adopters say about an innovation determines its success. The more
they crow and preen, the more likely the new behaviour or product
will be perceived positively by the majority of a population.
Early adopters are vital for another reason. They become an
independent test bed, ironing out the chinks and reinventing the
innovation to suit mainstream needs.
Fortunately early adopters are an easy audience. They don’t need
much persuading because they are on the lookout for anything that
could give them a social or economic edge. When you call a public
meeting to discuss energy-saving devices or new farming methods,
they’re the ones who come along. They’re the first people in your
block to install a water tank, mulch their garden, buy laptops for
their kids, or install solar panels.
Some authorities talk about a “chasm” between visionary early
adopters and pragmatic majorities.7 They think the chasm explains
why many products are initially popular with early adopters but
crash and burn before they reach mass markets. Everett Rogers
disagreed8 with the idea of a chasm. He thought early adopters and
majorities formed a continuum. However most early adopters still
have radically different interests and needs from most majorities, so
even if there’s no real chasm it’s a useful mental construct that
warns us against the easy assumption that one size fits all. Once
again, what makes products or practices spread is not persuasion.
It’s the whether the product or behaviour is being reinvented to
become easier, simpler, quicker, cheaper, and more advantageous.
How to work with early adopters:
• Offer strong face-to-face support for a limited number of early
adopters to trial the new idea.
• Study the trials carefully to discover how to make the idea more
convenient, low cost and marketable.
• Reward their egos e.g. with media coverage.
• Promote them as fashion leaders (beginning with the cultish end
of the media market).
• Recruit and train some as peer educators.
• Maintain relationships with regular feedback.
Early majority: Assuming the product or behaviour leaps the
chasm, it may eventually reach majority audiences. Early majorities
are pragmatists, comfortable with moderately progressive ideas,
but won’t act without solid proof of benefits. They are followers who
are influenced by mainstream fashions and wary of fads. They want
to hear “industry standard” and “endorsed by normal, respectable
folks”.
Majorities are cost sensitive and risk averse. They are looking for
simple, proven, better ways of doing what they already do. They
require guaranteed off-the-shelf performance, minimum disruption,
minimum commitment of time, minimum learning, and either cost
neutrality or rapid payback periods. And they hate complexity. They
haven’t got time to think about your product or project. They’re too
busy getting the kids to football and running their businesses. If
they do have spare time they’re not going to spend it fussing
around with complicated, expensive, inconvenient products or
behaviours. They want to hear “plug-and-play”, “no sweat” or
“user-friendly” and “value for money”.
How to work with the early majority:
• Offer give-aways or competitions to stimulate buzz.
• Use mainstream advertising and media stories featuring
endorsements from credible, respected, similar folks.
• Lower the entry cost and guarantee performance.
• Redesign to maximise ease and simplicity.
• Cut the red tape: simplify application forms and instructions.
• Provide strong customer service and support.
Late majority: They are conservative pragmatists who hate risk
and are uncomfortable your new idea. Practically their only driver is
the fear of not fitting in, hence they will follow mainstream fashions
and established standards. They are often influenced by the fears
and opinions of laggards.
How to work with the late majority:
• Focus on promoting social norms rather than just product
benefits: they’ll want to hear that plenty of other conservative folks
like themselves think it’s normal or indispensable.
• Keep refining the product to increase convenience and reduce
costs.
• Emphasise the risks of being left behind.
• Respond to criticisms from laggards.
Laggards: Meanwhile laggards hold out to the bitter end. They are
people who see a high risk in adopting a particular product or
behaviour. Some of them are so worried they stay awake all night,
tossing and turning, thinking up arguments against it. And don’t
forget they might be right! It’s possible they are not really not
laggards at all, but innovators of ideas that are so new they
challenge your paradigms! In the early stages, where you are
focusing on early adopters, you can probably ignore the views of
laggards, but when you come to work with late majorities you’ll
need to address their criticisms, because late majorities share many
of their fears.
How to work with laggards:
• Give them high levels of personal control over when, where, how
and whether they do the new behaviour.
• Maximise their familiarity with new products or behaviours. Let
them see exactly how other laggards have successfully adopted the
innovation.
Each of these adopter personalities is very different. It’s vital to
know which one you are addressing at a given time. And no, you
usually can’t address them all at once. Why? Because products and
behaviours only mature gradually. The exception is when you have
customized quite different products or behaviours for each group.
Weight Watchers is an example. It has a traditional calorie-counting
method that suits early adopters, a “points value” method that suits
early majorities, and a “no count” system for everyone else.
How big is each segment? Rogers went as far as assigning precise
notional percentages for each segment:
Innovators: 2.5% : Early Adopters: 13.5% ; Early majority: 34%
Late majority 34%; Laggards 16% 9
However the “20:60:20 Rule” is a good all-purpose rule of thumb.
When designing a change project you need to know one vital fact:
the percentage who have already taken up the innovation. That
figure tells you which segment you are addressing next. It gives
you great insight into how to design your project and how to pitch
your communications.
Of course, no one is an innovator or a laggard about all new ideas.
That would be too exhausting. In reality, most people are majorities
about most things, and only innovators or laggards about certain
specific things. We wouldn’t say “John is a laggard”, we’d say “John
is an iPhone laggard” or “George Bush snr is a broccoli laggard”.
Reading
The standard text is Everett M. Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations,
Fifth Edition 2003, Free Press, New York. It’s thorough, readable,
and strongly recommended for anyone who’s serious about initiating
change. Endnotes
1 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Fifth Edition 2003, Free Press, New
York, p221
2 Quoted in Purcell, P. (2004) A quick mod takes gamers beyond their doom,
Sydney Morning Herald, 23 August
3 Soumerai, S.B. et al (1998) Effect of Local Medical Opinion Leaders on Quality of
Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction, A randomized controlled trial, Journal of the
American Medical Association Vol 279, pp1358-1363
4 Hirst, E. (1989) Reaching for 100 percent participation in a utility conservation
programme The Hood River project, Energy Policy Vol 17(2) pp155-164
5 Kelly, J.A. et al (1997) Randomised, controlled, community-level HIV-prevention
intervention for sexual-risk behaviour amongst homosexual men in US cities, The
Lancet Vol 350, 9090; Health Module p1500
6 Rogers op. cit. p322
7 Moore, Geoffrey, A. (1999) Marketing and Selling High-Tech Products to
Mainstream Customers (revised edition), HarperCollins, New York
8 Rogers, op. cit. p282
9 ibid. p281
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)