Editing Diffusion of innovations (section)

==Elements==
The key elements in diffusion research are:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Element
!Definition
|-
|Innovation
|Innovation is a broad category, relative to the current knowledge of the analyzed unit. Any idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption could be considered an innovation available for study.{{sfn|Rogers|1983|p=11}}
|-
|Adopters
|Adopters are the minimal unit of analysis. In most studies, adopters are individuals, but can also be organizations (businesses, schools, hospitals, etc.), clusters within social networks, or countries.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Meyer|first1=G.|year=2004 |title=Diffusion Methodology: Time to Innovate? |journal=Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives |volume=9 |issue=S1 |pages=59–69|doi=10.1080/10810730490271539|pmid=14960404|s2cid=20932024}}</ref> 
|-
|Communication channels
|Diffusion, by definition, takes place among people or organizations. Communication channels allow the transfer of information from one unit to the other.{{sfn|Rogers|1983|p=17}} Communication patterns or capabilities must be established between parties as a minimum for diffusion to occur.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Ghoshal|first1=DS.|last2=Bartlett |first2=C. |year=1988 |title=Creation, Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations |journal=The Journal of International Business Studies |volume=19 |issue=3 |pages=372|doi=10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8490388|s2cid=167588113}}</ref>
|-
|Time
|The passage of time is necessary for innovations to be adopted; they are rarely adopted instantaneously. In fact, in the Ryan and Gross (1943) study on hybrid corn adoption, adoption occurred over more than ten years, and most farmers only dedicated a fraction on their fields to the new corn in the first years after adoption.<ref name="chla.library.cornell.edu"/>{{sfn|Rogers|1983|p=21, 23}}
|-
|Social system
|The social system is the combination of external influences (mass media, surfactants, organizational or governmental mandates) and internal influences ([[interpersonal ties|strong and weak social relationships]], distance from [[opinion leadership|opinion leaders]]).<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Strang| first1=D.| last2= Soule | first2= Sarah |year=1998 |title=Diffusion in Organizations and Social Movements: From Hybrid Corn to Poison Pills |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |volume=24 |pages=265–290 | doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.265}}</ref> There are many roles in a social system, and their combination represents the total influences on a potential adopter.{{sfn|Rogers|1983|p=24}}
|}

===Characteristics of innovations===
Studies have explored many characteristics of innovations. Meta-reviews have identified several characteristics that are common among most studies.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greenhalgh |first1=T. |last2=Robert |first2=G. |last3=Macfarlane |first3=F. |last4=Bate |first4=P. |last5=Kyriakidou |first5=O. |year=2004 |title=Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations |journal=The Milbank Quarterly |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=581–629 |doi=10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x|pmid=15595944 |pmc=2690184 }}</ref> These are in line with the characteristics that Rogers initially cited in his reviews.{{sfn|Rogers|1962}}

Rogers describes five characteristics that potential adopters evaluate when deciding whether to adopt an innovation:{{sfn|Rogers|1962}}

# Compatibility: How well does this innovation fit with existing values, patterns of behavior, or tools? 
# Trialability: Can you try it before you buy it?
# Relative advantage: In what way is this innovation better than the alternatives?
# Observability: Are its benefits noticeable? If someone else is using the innovation, can I see it being used? 
# Simplicity / Complexity: The easier it is to learn or grasp, the faster it diffuses.

These qualities interact and are judged as a whole. For example, an innovation might be extremely complex, reducing its likelihood to be adopted and diffused, but it might be very compatible with a large advantage relative to current tools. Even with this high learning curve, potential adopters might adopt the innovation anyway.

Studies also identify other characteristics of innovations, but these are not as common as the ones that Rogers lists above.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greenhalgh |first1=T. |last2=Robert |first2=G. |last3=Macfarlane |first3=F. |last4=Bate |first4=P. |last5=Kyriakidou |first5=O. |year=2004 |title=Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations |journal=The Milbank Quarterly |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=597–598 |doi=10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x|pmid=15595944 |pmc=2690184 }}</ref> The fuzziness of the boundaries of the innovation can impact its adoption. Specifically, innovations with a small core and large periphery are easier to adopt.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Denis|first1=JL|last2=Herbert|first2=Y|last3=Langley|first3=A|last4=Lozeau|first4=D|last5=Trottier|first5=LH|s2cid=6388134|title=Explaining Diffusion Patterns for Complex Health Care Innovations|journal=Health Care Management Review|date=2002|volume=27|issue=3|pages=60–73|doi=10.1097/00004010-200207000-00007|pmid=12146784}}</ref> Innovations that are less risky are easier to adopt as the potential loss from failed integration is lower.<ref name="Meyer 1988">{{cite journal|last1=Meyer|first1=AD|last2=Goes|first2=JB|s2cid=17430228|title=Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A multi-Level Contextual Analysis|journal=Academy of Management Review|date=1988|volume=31|issue=4|pages=897–923|doi=10.5465/256344|doi-broken-date=22 January 2025 |jstor=256344}}</ref> Innovations that are disruptive to routine tasks, even when they bring a large relative advantage, might not be adopted because of added instability. Likewise, innovations that make tasks easier are likely to be adopted.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Dobbins|first1=R|last2=Cockerill|first2=R|last3=Barnsley|first3=J|title=Factors Affecting the Utilization of Systematic Reviews|journal=International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care|date=2001|volume=17|issue=2|pages=203–14|doi=10.1017/s0266462300105069|pmid=11446132|s2cid=25109112}}</ref> Closely related to relative complexity, knowledge requirements are the ability barrier to use presented by the difficulty to use the innovation. Even when there are high knowledge requirements, support from prior adopters or other sources can increase the chances for adoption.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Aubert|first1=BA|last2=Hamel|first2=G|title=Adoption of Smart Cards in the Medical Sector: The Canadian Experience|journal=Social Science & Medicine|date=2001|volume=53|issue=7|pages=879–94|doi=10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00388-9|pmid=11522135|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Characteristics of individual adopters===
Like innovations, adopters have been determined to have traits that affect their likelihood to adopt an innovation. A bevy of individual personality traits have been explored for their impacts on adoption, but with little agreement.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greenhalgh |first1=T. |last2=Robert |first2=G. |last3=Macfarlane |first3=F. |last4=Bate |first4=P. |last5=Kyriakidou |first5=O. |year=2004 |title=Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations |journal=The Milbank Quarterly |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=599–600 |doi=10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x|pmid=15595944 |pmc=2690184 }}</ref> Ability and motivation, which vary on situation unlike personality traits, have a large impact on a potential adopter's likelihood to adopt an innovation. Unsurprisingly, potential adopters who are motivated to adopt an innovation are likely to make the adjustments needed to adopt it.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Ferlie|first1=E|last2=Gabbay|first2=L|last3=Fitzgerald|first3=L|last4=Locock|first4=L|last5=Dopson|first5=S|chapter=Organisational Behaviour and Organisational Studies in Health Care: Reflections on the Future|editor1-last=Ashburner|editor1-first=L|title=Evidence-Based Medicine and Organisational Change: An Overview of Some Recent Qualitiative Research|date=2001|publisher=Palgrave|location=Basingstoke}}</ref> Motivation can be impacted by the meaning that an innovation holds; innovations can have symbolic value that encourage (or discourage) adoption.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Eveland|first1=JD|title=Diffusion, Technology Transfer and Implementation|journal=Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization|date=1986|volume=8|issue=2|pages=303–322|doi=10.1177/107554708600800214|s2cid=143645140}}</ref> First proposed by Ryan and Gross (1943), the overall connectedness of a potential adopter to the broad community represented by a city.<ref name="chla.library.cornell.edu"/> Potential adopters who frequent metropolitan areas are more likely to adopt an innovation. Finally, potential adopters who have the power or agency to create change, particularly in organizations, are more likely to adopt an innovation than someone with less power over his choices.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Rogers|first1=EM|title=Diffusion of Innovations|date=1995|publisher=Free Press|location=New York}}</ref>

Complementary to the diffusion framework, behavioral models such as [[Technology acceptance model]] (TAM) and [[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology]] (UTAUT) are frequently used to understand individual technology adoption decisions in greater details.

===Characteristics of organizations===
Organizations face more complex adoption possibilities because organizations are both the aggregate of its individuals and its own system with a set of procedures and norms.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Greenhalgh |first1=T. |last2=Robert |first2=G. |last3=Macfarlane |first3=F. |last4=Bate |first4=P. |last5=Kyriakidou |first5=O. |year=2004 |title=Diffusion of Innovations in Service Organizations: Systematic Review and Recommendations |journal=The Milbank Quarterly |volume=82 |issue=4 |pages=607–610 |doi=10.1111/j.0887-378x.2004.00325.x|pmid=15595944 |pmc=2690184 }}</ref> Three organizational characteristics match well with the individual characteristics above: tension for change (motivation and ability), innovation-system fit (compatibility), and assessment of implications (observability). Organizations can feel pressured by a tension for change. If the organization's situation is untenable, it will be motivated to adopt an innovation to change its fortunes. This tension often plays out among its individual members. Innovations that match the organization's pre-existing system require fewer coincidental changes and are easy to assess and more likely to be adopted.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Gustafson|first1=DH|last2=F Sanfort|first2=M|last3=Eichler|first3=M|last4=ADams|first4=L|last5=Bisognano|first5=M|last6=Steudel|first6=H|title=Developing and Testing a Model to Predict Outcomes of Organizational Change|journal=Health Services Research|date=2003|volume=38|issue=2|pages=751–776|doi=10.1111/1475-6773.00143|pmid=12785571|pmc=1360903}}</ref> The wider environment of the organization, often an industry, community, or economy, exerts pressures on the organization, too. Where an innovation is diffusing through the organization's environment for any reason, the organization is more likely to adopt it.<ref name="Meyer 1988" /> Innovations that are intentionally spread, including by political mandate or directive, are also likely to diffuse quickly.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Øvretveit|first1=J|last2=Bate|first2=P|last3=Cleary|first3=P|last4=Cretin|first4=S|last5=Gustafson|first5=D|last6=McInnes|first6=K|last7=McLeod|first7=H|last8=Molfenter|first8=T|last9=Plsek|first9=P|last10=Robert|first10=G|last11=Shortell|first11=S|last12=Wilson|first12=T|title=Quality Collaboratives: Lessons from Research|journal=Quality and Safety in Health Care|date=2002|volume=11|issue=4|pages=345–51|doi=10.1136/qhc.11.4.345|pmid=12468695|pmc=1757995}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Exworthy|first1=M|last2=Berney|first2=L|last3=Powell|first3=M|title=How Great Expectations in Westminster May Be Dashed Locally: The Local Implementation of National Policy on Health Inequalities|journal=Policy & Politics|date=2003|volume=30|issue=1|pages=79–96|doi=10.1332/0305573022501584}}</ref>

h individual decisions where behavioral models (e.g. [[Technology acceptance model|TAM]] and [[Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology|UTAUT]]) can be used to complement the diffusion framework and reveal further details, these models are not directly applicable to organizational decisions. However, research suggested that simple behavioral models can still be used as a good predictor of organizational technology adoption when proper initial screening procedures are introduced.<ref name="Li2020">Li, Jerry  (2020), [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340777210 "Blockchain technology adoption: Examining the Fundamental Drivers"], ''Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Management Science and Industrial Engineering'', ACM Publication, April 2020, pp. 253–260. {{doi|10.1145/3396743.3396750}}</ref>