gazette | theater | bistro
Diffusion
of Innovation
other pages
past
present
future
the new economy
this page
adopter categories | change agents | network effects
| Ricci Street
< Port 80 < Charthouse
|| search | sitemap | help gazette | theater | bistro |
| | |
|
|
Fifty years ago, Everett M. Rogers developed a theory of diffusion of innovations, that is, how new things spread through a society. His 1962 book of that name is in its fourth edition (1995). It was based on even older, Depression-era rural sociology, such as how Midwestern farmers adopted hardier corn. Rogers' model is general enough that it still works for the small slice of the world that resembles North America after World War II. It may not apply at all to the rest of the world. For example, East Timor.
The Other
Side of the Divide
by Stewart Taggart
The Industry Standard, September 4, 2000
Do the rules apply when there is no economy? In the shattered island nation of East Timor, an unlikely assortment of U.N. workers, entrepreneurs and engineers is trying to find out.
Remember that we're talking about the World Wide Web, not the Middle-Class, Big Business American Web let alone how fast poor farmers started using tractors in the 1930's. In 1997 and 1998, the online journal First Monday had a series of fascinating articles:
Internet
in Sierra Leone: The Way Forward?
by John Abdul Kargbo
Internet
in Serbia: From Dark Side of the Moon to the Internet Revolution
by Drazen Pantic
Haiti
and Internet Governance
by John S. Quarterman
Indonesia:
From Mainstream to Alternative Media
by Andreas Harsono
Power
to the People: The Role of Electronic Media in Promoting Democracy in Africa
by Dana Ott
In Ott's article, look at the charts. Compare the adoption curves to Rogers'. Another three-year-old study (beware!) tries to make the developing world fit Rogers' model: A Preliminary Model of Internet Diffusion within Developing Countries by Bayaarma Bazar and Gregg Boalch.
As recently as December 1997, Rogers tried to apply his Diffusion of Innovations Model to a networked world.
 |
The innovators (the darkest brown 2.5 percent on the far left) are venturesome, the visionaries, the wild-eyed revolutionaries, at least to the others, who feel threatened by change and risk-taking. To the innovators, themselves, the adoption is a no-brainer.
The early adopters (the darker brown 13.5 percent on the left) are respectable opinion leaders. They can function effectively as evangelists and missionaries.
The early majority (the 34 percent to the left of middle) is very deliberately ahead of the curve, but willing to make safe investments.
The late majority (the 34 percent to the right of middle) is skeptical and often part of a backlash.
Rogers describes the laggards (the lightest brown 16 percent on the far right):
They possess almost no opinion leadership. Laggards are the most localite in their outlook of all adopter categories; many are near isolates in the social networks of their system. The point of reference for the laggard is the past. Decisions are often made in terms of what has been done previously. Laggards tend to be suspicious of innovations and change agents. Resistance to innovations on the part of laggards may be entirely rational from the laggard's viewpoint, as their resources are limited and they must be certain that a new idea will not fail before they can adopt.
Does that laggard sound like anyone you know?
Where are you? Where am I? Well, it depends. Mostly, it depends on the group you're putting me in. In terms of Medaille, I'm an innovator. In terms of computer-literate professionals in the U.S., when I started using the Internet daily in 1993, I was an early adopter.
It also depends on which innovation you're talking about because most come in clusters. When I started using the Web daily in 1994, I was an innovator. The email laggards in the U.S. (pop. 280 million) as a whole will end up among the early adopters world-wide (pop. 6 billion). When most Americans start using the wireless Web, they'll be early adopters because all the innovators are Europeans.
Just as the earth spins around one axis and revolves around several others (around the Sun, within the galaxy, which is itself part of the expanding universe, etc.), so I can be several places on the curve and not one of them defines me alone without careful reference to context.
Let's reverse that to make it clear: without careful reference to context, Rogers' diffusion of innovation curve is useful for generating a list of talking points. For anything else, especially strategic decisions at work, I'd be very careful.
According to the October 2000 UCLA Internet Report, "Surveying the Digital Future", Americans as a whole are in the late majority phase in terms of daily use the Internet. B2C shopping, however, is still in the early adopter phase. Perhaps after the 2000 holiday season, it will move into the early majority.
It is unclear to me whether the whole for Rogers is everyone who could use the Internet or everyone who will end up using the Internet.
Does this curve have any relationship to profitability curves?
According to Rogers, the change agent:
develops in others a need for the change
establishes information-exchange relationships
diagnoses problems
creates intent to change
translates intent into action
stabilizes adoption and prevents discontinuance
shifts others from reliance on the change agent to self-reliance
I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they
look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble,
every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may
absolutely refuse to move at all.
-- Alexis de Toqueville
an example of a change agent at work: Christopher Locke's Gonzo Markets
Many potential innovations are impractical until a critical mass is using them. After a critical mass is achieved, the benefits of joining the club are likely to overwhelm any reasons to pioneer an alternative direction. As a result, the choices made by early adopters can be fateful for everyone else.
See InfoRules.com, Hal Varian's site in support of his 1998 book, Information Rules.
Similar to Metcalfe's Law: as the number of a network's nodes increases arithmetically, the whole network's value increases exponentially.
Weapon
of Math Destruction
by David P. Reed
Context Magazine, Spring 1999
Sarnoff's Law
The value of a network grows in proportion to the number n of viewers.
Metcalfe's Law
The value of a network grows in proportion to the square of the number n² of
users.
Reed's Law aka the Group-Forming Law
The value of the network grows in proportion to the number 2n
of groups that can be formed.
That
Sneaky Exponential—Beyond Metcalfe's Law to the Power of Community Building
by David P. Reed
Context Magazine, Spring 1999
The
Network Effect
by Paul Kedrosky
Industry Standard, July 23, 1999
Network Effects
by Eric Ransdell
Fast Company #27
Like any network, its value grows to the nth power of the number of people who use it. A telephone network is meaningless with 1 phone on it. With 2 phones, it begins to be useful. With 1,000 phones it's important. With 100 million, it's incredibly important.
Control
Choices and Network Effects in Hypertext Systems
by E. James Whitehead, Jr.
University of California, Irvine, 1999
To examine how a hypertext system generates network effects, it is useful to examine two sets of users, the readers, and the content providers. A reader uses the hypertext system in a read-only fashion, viewing information and using services provided by the system. In contrast, a content provider uses the hypertext system in a read/write manner, both providing new content while also reading information and using services on the system. So, while all users of a hypertext system are considered to be viewing content, a subset of the users also adds (and removes) information to the system.
According to Rogers, adopters of all categories go through a five-stage process.
First, the adopter's knowledge comes from exposure and understanding. Whether alone although usually with the help of others, the adopter becomes persuaded to form a favorable attitude. Then the adopter makes a decision to try it out. If it works, the adopter implements it by putting it to appropriate use. Finally, the adopter becomes confirmed by continuing to benefit from the use.
How do Internet growth and e-commerce growth compare to other adoption curves? For example, the steam engine, the telephone, automobile, the TV? What about the fax, which was invented in the 1800's but didn't get to even the early adoption stage for a hundred years.
Remember that the Internet is more a cluster of innovations than a single innovation.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
