Rogers' modified by Moore
Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation model modified by Geoffrey Moore.
Whilst Rogers mentions early adopters as the opinion leaders. Moore argued that this is actually vital in order to target the early majority – he argued that there is a chasm between early adopters and early majority – explaining why some innovations become merely a minority interest.
Rogers does not agree with Moore:
‘…some scholars claimed that a discontinuity exists between innovators and early adopters versus the early majority, late majority and laggards (Moore, 1991). Past research shows no support for this claim of a ‘chasm’ between certain adopter categories. (Rogers, 2003, p.282)
Further reading:
MIT – Moving from Technology-Centered to Human-Centered Products
The Life Cycle of a Technology
Proven Models
‘Crossing the Chasm’ – Wikipedia entry
Les Robinson – ‘Enabling Change’
And another from Week 4
Helpful to consider the innovation itself – strengths and weaknesses? Adapted the following framework from Rogers (pp.229ff)
Relative advantage: what advantages does innovation offer? Does it offer a MUCH better way? Does it offer an unspectacular but valuable improvement? Calculating whether benefit is large enough to make their effort worthwhile, Rogers argues – people need to consider other issues.
Compatibility: Experiences and needs – Is the innovation compatible with those? (Rogers) However, if an idea is completely compatible with existing practice, it will hardly be an innovation.
Complexity: is the innovation difficult to adopt because it is complex – new technical skills; new teaching skills; new learning skills.
Trialability: before committing to spending a lot of resources – can a trial be run? Trials can be relatively cheap and very informative – reducing the risk and allowing for modification of the original innovation. Rogers argues that trialability is important for early adopters.
Observability: Can others observe the benefits? can it link back to ‘relative advantage’? Innovation is encouraged if others can perceive the advantage.
Another one I forgot to post… (I think there are a few more :s )
Rogers stresses that his categories are ideal types ‘ based on abstractions from empirical investigations’ (p. 282) – they help us think about differences in how people adopt technology, but they don’t capture every individual’s behaviour. Not everyone conforms to the ideal types, and that there isn’t a clear break between one category and another.
Some authors take up terms and re-use them as emphatic labels, implying that people fall clearly into categories. Innovativeness in elearning cannot be measured merely in terms of speed; innovation also demands creativity even where the technology has proved itself in other contexts.
Kirkpatrick has warned of the dangers of categorising staff.
‘I believe we must be careful not to generalize about ‘staff’ or to view staff simply as categories such as resisters, disciples or gurus and that we [should] not assume academics to be passive in the process.’ (Kirkpatrick, 2001, p.175)
Forgot to post this up a couple of weeks ago.
Diffusion of Innovations
Innovators; early adopters; early majority; late majority; laggards.
Rogers’ model adapted in an interesting way by Geoffrey Moore – idea of a chasm separating innovators and early adopters from the rest.
Rogers looked ‘outside the box’ “I was convinced that the diffusion of innovations was a kind of universal process of social change” (2003, p.vxi)
Innovators: tolerate & enjoy high levels of uncertainty and risk – technical knowledge is crucial – their community may react with criticism, uncertainty and scepticism; will probably look for support from a geographically scattered ‘clique of innovators’ (Rogers, 2003, p.282)
Early adopters: larger group – much rooted in their local community; usually respected as opinion leaders: more cautious colleagues rely on them for judgement.
Early majority: a still larger group – one third in total. People who tend to think carefully before adopting an innovation: they don’t want to be first in, neither do they want to be the last – staying well behind the leading edge.
Late majority: Sceptical and cautious – uncertainty must be removed before they feel safe to adopt. Don’t make a change until there is lot of pressure from their peers – logic in their position – they can’t afford failure.
Laggards: ‘near isolates in the social networks of their system’ he argues, he does not mean any disrespect .
Rogers describes later adopters unfavorably in terms of personality, saying they are generally less empathic, have lower ability to deal with abstractions, have fewer years of formal education.
Recent Comments