• Regulate CPAs in accordance with the law and the Institute’s Code of Ethics in the public interest.
• Ensure that CPAs are constantly up to date in all matters relating to their professional work.
• Maintain the highest levels of educational standards for new entrants to the profession.
• Represent the interests of members where appropriate.

The CPA’s Suzanne Shaw, outlined the reason for the emergence of non-formal and informal e-learning technologies in the Institute:

As one of [the bodies] in the Ireland that train accountants and regulate them throughout their professional life, our members are predominantly split three ways: practitioners; entrepreneurs; and employees of businesses.

All of them are at the coalface of the current economic climate and many of them use tools like LinkedIn, Twitter and Facebook to give one another practical advice about sustaining businesses and planning for a long-term environment. It’s a great way to get information out to people really quickly.

It seems that the CPA members are using Facebook and Twitter to share articles and information to keep each apprised of developments in their domain. Ms. Shaw again:

The beauty of social networking is it enables two-way communication or, if you want, one-to-many communication. The CPA uses it to gauge feedback on courses and products and adjust them accordingly.

One of the benefits of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter is that they are "ready-made." The CPA’s experience is that they can concentrate on the business use of the technology without contributors having to worry about the technology per se. Despite being (by it’s very nature) a very traditional organization, the obvious business advantages of using these platforms for information-sharing seems to have eased the transition to using social media. There are a number of core uses of social media for learning in the CPA:

• The CPA recently set up a space on Facebook for new students to get and share information.
• In terms of professional use, with closed LinkedIn forums are used, so information can be kept confidential between members.
• CPA accountants are using Twitter as a way of relaying information or lobbying issues.
• Professional members make use of LinkedIn to keep in touch with each other, as well as business associates.

Interestingly, one of the main drivers of the growth in utilization of social media tools is that accountants’ clients are "pushing them to be more involved in online communication" according to Ms. Shaw.

It seems that once members are exposed to Web 2.0 technologies, they adapt their own information-sharing practices to include Twitter and Facebook. Ms. Shaw stated that:

Many share war stories and know-how in the forums. With CPE seminars taking place across the country, people not only meet up but can also keep in touch. Because people have hectic working lives and a home life to balance, they can’t get to every course or seminar, so they …use these tools to share notes and find out where the next course is taking place. Not every one can make it to the centre of Dublin after a day’s work, so we’ve started uploading video lectures. Students …are recording podcasts of lectures and sharing on places like Facebook. We estimate about 10% of our 5,500 members and students are using social media for continuous professional education. With Facebook, for example, they are truly engaging with one another. Many use it because they are that generation, others have begun dabbling. It can only grow from here.

Brutus, in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar tells Cassius that 

There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune

Act IV, Scene 3.

In a similar vein, I would suggest that there are trends in the uses and the adoption of technology. The current global economic environment as well as the emergence and broad adoption of easy-to-use Read/Write Web tools like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn in society-at-large are profoundly re-shaping the ways people and organizations communicate.

As we know from Rogers’ writings on diffusion of innovation, people’s attitude toward a new technology is a key element in its diffusion. Roger’s Innovation Decision Process theory asserts that innovation diffusion is a process that occurs over time through five stages:

   1. Awareness
   2. Interest
   3. Evaluation
   4. Trial
   5. Adoption

The final phase of the diffusion process is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (Diffusion of Innovations, 2003, p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Figure 1 Diffusion of Innovation curve
[Click to enlarge]

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration. By endorsing and supporting a range of well-tested, free-to-use solutions, that are currently very positively received in the public consciousness due to their apparent ability to elect presidents (Obama), overthrow despotic regimes (Obama again for Dubya Iran), and circumvent traditional media channels (Michael Jackson’s death). Such momentum is hard to ignore, especially when coupled with the economic imperative of clients demanding access to CPA members’ skills via social media.

However, a corollary to the curve described in Figure 1 (above) is the Gartner Hype Lifecycle illustrated in Figure 2 (below).

Figure 2 Generic Gartner Hype Cycle
[Click to enlarge]

I would suggest that Twitter, Facebook etc are well on their way to reaching what Gartner describes as the "Peak of Inflated Expectations" associated with this type of innovation. It remains to be seen if the CPA can take this flood in the tide of technology and progress their non-formal learning initiatives, or if they will be "bound in shallows and in miseries" if they are unable to leverage the potential of this phenomenon.

___________

References:

Kennedy, J. (2009). Number crunchers find social media a ‘tweet’ surprise. Silicon Republic. [Internet] 29 June. Available from: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13271/ [Accessed 29 June 2009] 

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

• Innovators
• Early Adopters
• The Early Majority

In this last post in this series, I will describe the final categories of adopters of diffused ideas.

The Majority

As a group, the Majority can be characterized as having less education and are older than the Early Majority. While they participate less in formal and non-formal groups with their peers, they probably form the largest cohort of the membership of such groups. They belong to fewer organizations than the early adopters. They access fewer blog, wikis, and other means of discovering information about new ideas and technologies. They do not participate in as many activities outside the organization than people who adopt earlier.

Nonadopters

The final category include the nonadopters. This group has the least education and is the oldest. They participate the least in formal groups and other initiatives.

Conclusion

In my view, one of the phenomena that emerged form researching this topic was the power of informational social influence, or social proof:

[It] is a psychological phenomenon that occurs in ambiguous social situations when people are unable to determine the appropriate mode of behavior. Making the assumption that surrounding people possess more knowledge about the situation, they will deem the behavior of others as appropriate or better informed.

(Wikipedia)

We can say, based upon the evidence of Bohlen’s and Beal’s research, that people often do and believe things because many other people do and believe the same things.

In this context, innovators – pioneers – are initially ignored by the majority during their initial evangelizing of a new idea or technology, almost as if their preference for such an idea is idiosyncratic because of an innovator’s role. only after early adopters (who are perceived by the community-at-large to be the “smart money”) take on a new idea, will true diffusion begin to take place. This is case of “the pioneers get the arrows, the settlers get the land.”

_______________
References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Wikipedia contributors, "Social Proof," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia [Internet] Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_proof (accessed November 10, 2008).

–

As discussed in yesterday’s post, there are there are five categories of adopters of diffused ideas:

1. Innovators
2. Early Adopters
3. Early Majority
4. Majority
5. Nonadopters

I covered the first category, Innovators previously.

Early Adopters

The second category of adopters are Early Adopters. Typically, they are younger than the majority of adopters (but are not necessarily younger than Innovators). They are also better-educated that people or organizations that adopt at a slower rate, or do not adopt at all.  They tend to participate more in the community of users through organizations like the ASTD and the E-Learning Guild, as well as using blogs, wikis and forums.

According to Bohlen and Beal (1957)

there is considerable evidence that  this group furnishes a disproportionate amount of the formal leadership in organizations.

(p.5)

Early Majority

The third category of adopters is called the Early Majority. Table 1 (below)demonstrates that the rate of diffusion increases rapidly after this group begins to adopt.

Table 1 Rate of diffusion

[Click on image to enlarge]

The early majority are slightly above average in age, education and professional experience. They tend to participate in the community of users through organizations like the ASTD and the E-Learning Guild, as well as by reading blogs, wikis and forums occasionally. They have  medium-high social and economic status. While less active in peer-related activities than early adopters, they participate more than the majority of adopters.

In many cases, they are not formal leaders in organizations, but they are active in and influencing formal leaders to promote new ideas and technologies in organizations. It can be said then, that the early majority are likely to be informal leaders – in a sense they are a “weather vane” that indicates to the majority “which way the wind is blowing.”

People in this category are typically more conservative than Innovators or Early Adopters: “they must be sure an idea will work before they adopt it” (p.6). Because this category of people have fewer resources than the previous two, they “cannot afford to make poor decisions.” The people tend to associate with their own group within organizations. They value highly the opinions of their peers, as this is the primary source of their status and prestige.

More…

_______________
References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

–

The diffusion curve (see Table 1) illustrates the typical slow initial rate of adoption, the a substantial acceleration of update, followed by leveling off of the adoption rate. Bohlen and Beal’s research shows "significant differences" (p.4) in the individual and social characteristics of people in alignment with the time they adopt an innovation.

Table 1 Rate of Adoption over Time (after Bohlen and Beal, 1957)

[Click on the image to enlarge]

As we can see form the table, there are five categories:

1. Innovators
2. Early Adopters
3. Early Majority
4. Majority
5. Nonadopters

Innovators

The very first to adopt a new idea are innovators. Innovators probably have a high net worth and a large amount of risk capital. "They can afford to take some risks" (Bohlen and Beal, p.5). Innovators have prestige and respect within their society or culture (and at the macro level, within their organization). Their sphere  of influence often goes beyond social or organizational boundaries.

Innovators  typically belong to formal organizations such as user groups and professional associations (such as the ASTD and the E-learning Guild) – such informal and formal associations provides them with access to more potential sources of information. Innovators also get their information from higher level research; they go directly to subject matter experts and researchers. Innovators also tend to subscribe to and regularly read specialized blogs, forums and wikis about current and potential future innovations.

Interestingly, Bohlen and Beal discovered that while their peers may watch the innovators and know what they are doing, they are not often named as colleagues or influencers that they (the peers) rely on for information.

More…

______________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

–

1. Awareness
2. Interest
3. Evaluation
4. Trial
5. Adoption

Awareness
At this first phase in the diffusion process, individuals or organizations become aware of a new idea or technology, but lack detail about it. For example, they may be aware of it’s name (i.e. e-learning) or the underlying technology (Web-based content delivery), but not know how how this manifests itself, or how it works.

Interest
At this point, the individuals or organizations want to know more about the concept or technology: what it is, how it works and it’s potential. This can be understood to be the "WIIFM" ("what’s in in for me?) stage, as the potential user investigates how it may enhance productivity and performance, or revenue generation, for example.

Evaluation
The next cognitive process concerns assessment; the individual or organization mentally "tries out" the idea or technology. The information attained in the previous is applied to their particular circumstances.

Trial
If the diffusion is deemed to have some potential, the individual or organization will try it out. Typically, this is a small-scale pilot implementation which provides specific information about how the solution aligns with the individual’s or organization’s requirements. According to Bohlen and Beal (1957),

…individuals need to test a new idea even though they have thought about it for a long time and they have gathered information concerning it.

(p.2)

Adoption
The final stage in the cognitive path is adoption. The phase is characterized by large-scale continued use of the idea or technology, and by "satisfaction with" (p.2) the idea. This does not mean that the the individual or organization that has accepted the idea will use it constantly, rather, it means that the diffused idea has been integrated into their schema or metal model as a valuable asset or resource.

Individuals or organizations will typically go through these processes at varying speeds, depending on factors ranging from the cost, time, and effort required to implement the diffused concept, the return on the investment, how well it aligns with their previous experience with similar concepts, as well as the complexity of the idea or technology under consideration.

More…
______________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77. [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–

Getting a new idea adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult.

(Rogers, E., Diffusion of Innovations, p.1)

In yesterday’s post, I began looking at the challenges of driving adoption of e-learning in organizations, and how looking at organizations from a Functionalist perspective could enable us to understand ways to drive the broad adoption of e-learning.  

Innovation and change – new ideas, processes, technologies, and work practices are a common part of the workplace environment. Sometimes these emerge spontaneously, and are disseminated organically, but more typically, new or different approaches are implemented as part of a strategic plan, or imposed upon workers under an operational or performance enhancement program.

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that anyone who has tried to develop an e-learning initiative for an organization has met with resistance at some level, whether it be a C-level exec with a “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” attitude, or workers simply refusing to take advantage of the resources placed at their disposal, citing reasons including:

• perceived poor focus of the initiative
  • (“this doesn’t apply to me”)
• lack of time to learn a new way of working
  • (“I’m too busy to learn a new way of working”)
• too much effort to change
  • (“my approach works just fine – why should I bother to change?”)
• lack of awareness
  • (“I didn’t know about it”)
• resistance to change
  • (“I’m not going to change”)

Understanding why workers exhibit these behaviors can be an effective means to counteract potential blocks to implementing new initiatives and to transition people in organizations to align with changes.

Diffusion of innovation is a theory of how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures. Based upon research undertaken by Joe Bohlen and George Beal in the late 1950’s, Everett M. Rogers developed and generalized the theory in his 1962 text Diffusion of Innovations, stating that

Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas.

(p.5) 

Rogers considered that the “special” (p.6) characteristic of diffusion centered upon the notion of innovation, or newness. This newness means that a certain degree of uncertainty is bound up in diffusion. Implicit in this is “a lack of certainty, of structure, of information” (p.6). Information (delivered by any one of a number of channels) is a means of reducing the degree of uncertainty.

Rogers asserted that innovation diffuses through organizations in an S curve (see Figure 1), as early adopters initially select the innovation, followed by the majority of users, until a technology or innovation is common.

Figure 1 Charting the Diffusion of Innovation

In tomorrow’s post, I will look in-depth at the phases of diffusion.

FOGRA: Well done to Munster yesterday, nearly a miracle.  

________________

References:

Bohlen, J. M., Beal, G. M. (1957) The Diffusion Process, Special Report No. 18 (Agriculture Extension Service, Iowa State College) 1: 56-77.   [Internet] Available from: http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/presentations/publications/comm/Diffusion%20Process.pdf [Accessed 3rd November 2008]

Rogers, E. M. (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.. Simon & Schuster International.

–