• 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]

–

• Change in material and equipment
• Improved practice
• Innovation
• Change in enterprise
• Cost

Change in material and equipment
By most measures, changes in materials and equipment are the simplest to implement. In the e-learning context, this could include changing from one authoring platform to another (i.e. from a commercially-available to an open-source content slide editor).

Improved practice
This second category of complexity, improved practice involves a change in methodology. An example of this would be moving from at traditionally content development cycle to a Rapid E-Learning approach.

Innovation
This category of innovation typically involved not only modifying the previous two categories, but also changes in regard to their use. An obvious example of innovation is an organization changing from an instructor-led learning and development approach to integrating e-learning into their strategy. Initially, this may look simple – the organization are merely changing the delivery channel(s) of content. But the adoption of e-learning demands a more sophisticated set of changes which affect everything from the theory and practice used to develop courseware, the skills and resources needed to develop materials, through to the impact of the innovation on the learners within the organization. Managing change successfully at this level requires the development of an effective adoption strategy to ensure learners are guided through the Innovation Decision Process. Ultimately, an innovation will only be successful if the intended audience adopt it.

Change in enterprise
The next category of complexity of practice typically involves many innovations. An example of a change in enterprise would be the adoption of Rosenberg’s Smart Enterprise Learning and Performance Architecture.

Cost
An important factor to consider when implementing a new set of ideas or technologies is cost.

Those practices which cost little seem to be adopted than more rapidly than those which are more expensive.

(p.3)

Similarly, those innovations which provide the greatest ROI in the shortest time are more likely to be adopted. For example, if, after an initial evaluation, followed by a pilot or trial, an e-learning initiative is deemed to have enabled the upskilling of a greater number of workers than the equivalent ILT course, or the costs associated with training (time out of production for workers, learning resources, time and expense associated with travel etc), then it is highly likely that this innovation will be implemented more widely across an organization. Once such an initiative has been rolled out, innovations seem to reach a tipping point – "the levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable" (Walsh, 2007). Once this point is reached, we can say that the innovations have become embedded as well-used practice .

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.

Walsh, Bryan (2007-10-12). A green tipping point Time Magazine. [Internet] Available from: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670871,00.html [Accessed on 19th 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.

– 

In ‘Recession and the Challenge to E-learning’ I asserted that

through familiarization and use, learners expectations are more reasonable about what can be achieved (and perhaps more importantly how it can be achieved through digitally mediated delivery) …But is it perceived as a necessity or a luxury?

When describing e-learning from a decade ago I stated:

Over-compressed images, poor animation, and very poor audio – hardly the immersive learning solution that e-learning flattered to promise at the time. Assuming the learner could access the content successfully, the chances were that the PC (for it was always a PC) that they were using to view their content was processing and displaying the date at a rate that we wouldn’t find acceptable on a PDA now (screen-size excluded). Pentium or pre-Pentium processors, 8-bit sound cards, 16 colors, 800×600 pixel displays. And so on.

and I quoted “e-Learning Guru” Kevin Kruse, who described 2001 as the year that

…brought the harsh, steep slope of unfulfilled promises. Several high-profile providers shut their doors while many more announced large-scale layoffs in the face of missed revenue targets and crashing stock prices. E-learning advocates retreated to the more defensible ground of "blended learning. This year [went] down as the Trough of Despair.

Figure 1. The E-learning Hype Cycle

As learning professionals I suggested, we could see the potential, but our imaginations exceeded the available technology.

In that post, I provided what I would call a Structural Functionalist approach (in the anthropological sense) to the topic. This perspective can be described as

the contribution made by any phenomenon to a larger system of which the phenomenon is a part.

(Hoult. 1969. p.139)

Over the next few blog entries, I will revisit this subject from the Functionalist or organizational angle, looking in particular at the concepts of Diffusion of Innovation, social proof, how new ideas, practices, and processes are integrated into organizations, and how learning professionals can operationalize e-learning to align with organizational goals.

More… 

___________________

References:

Hoult, T.F. (1969) Dictionary of Modern Sociology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Kruse, K. (2002) The State of e-Learning: Looking at History with the Technology Hype Cycle. [Internet] Available from: http://www.e-learningguru.com/articles/hype1_1.htm [Accessed 12th February 2008]

–