Editing Diffusion of innovations (section)

===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>