CHAPTER FOUR: DECISION MODELS
4.3. Concepts of the Adoption-Decision Process
As noted earlier, Rogers (1993) has postulated the infamous five steps of “innovation- decision process”. He argues that these stages do exist in a sequence, although some may be less apparent. The five decision steps are:
a) knowledge stage (pp. 164-168), which relates to the process of familiarizing
(cognitive process) of an innovation (awareness knowledge), how to use it (how-to knowledge), and what the innovation is for (principles knowledge);
b) persuasion stage (pp. 169-172) is the psychological process where the decision
maker actively searches for more information about the innovation. The focus is finding the reliable sources of information, a sufficient quantity and quality of the information and the strategy to construe the information. The benefits and costs of an innovation are evaluated and some social justifications are sought for developing her/his (negative or positive) perception on the innovation;
c) decision choice (pp. 172-174) is the stage where the decision maker would
make a small-scale experiment or observe the trials conducted by her/his peers. The results of this trial will serve as the basis for the adoption or rejection decision;
d) implementation (pp. 174-182) is the stage where the innovation is applied. The
decision maker also seeks further information about the source of the
innovation, the application procedures and troubleshooting strategies. Some uncertainties may result in different degrees of implementation, such as “re- invention”, in which the decision maker modifies the procedures or even the innovation as a whole. This is perceived as the decision maker’s strategy to cope with uncertainties, although some may not accept this as adoption (full implementation); and
e) confirmation stage (pp. 184-191) is included because it is believed that the adoption or rejection decision is not final. In this stage, the decision maker
seeks justification about whether it is necessary to continue or discontinue the adoption. This is important as she/he strives to make her/his attitudes and practices more favourable and in line with the current situation.
Dimara and Skuras (2003) suggest a simpler description of farmers’ decision making processes. They suggest the process consists of two stages: awareness/learning and evaluation. During the awareness period, farmers may receive and/or search for information about a particular problem or opportunity, e.g. an adoption opportunity. This stage shows both the passive and active roles of farmers in information
acquisition. These researchers also argue that the intensity of farmers’ information seeking effort is conditional on the farmers’ capacity as well as objectives. When the information is not available or simply ignored by the farmers, the awareness period may take a longer time and result in several sub-stages (Dimara & Skuras, 2003). Meanwhile, in the evaluation stage, the farmers scrutinize the expected benefits and costs from the adoption based on their goals (Dimara & Skuras, 2003).
However, as adoption is one type of managerial decision, one might want to check the standard conception of the agricultural decision making process. In some farm
management texts, a decision making process in a commercially-oriented farm is believed to consist of eight stages: “setting goals, recognizing problem, obtaining information, considering alternatives, making the decision, taking action, accepting responsibility and evaluating the decision” (Castle, Becker, & Nelson, 1987, p. 4). A similar concept was employed by Ohlmer et al. (1998) in their study of the decision making process of market-oriented farmers in Sweden. These researchers used eight elements of the decision making process: values and goals; problem detection; problem definition; observation; analysis; development of intention; implementation; and responsibility bearing.
Nevertheless, Ohlmer et al. (1998) noticed that these elements did not occur in a sequence and that farmers’ decision processes varied depending upon information availability as well as farmers’ capacity and endeavour in finding information and solutions. Therefore, they suggested a non-linear concept of the decision making
process (see Table 4.1) and formed a matrix format to represent the relationship between the four main decision stages (problem detection, problem definition, analysis and choice, and implementation) and four sub-stages (searching and paying attention, planning, evaluating and choosing, and bearing responsibility). Ohlmer et al. excluded the stage of defining values and goals as they argued that this stage should have occurred before the decision making process begins. Both values and goals are used by farmers as the yardsticks for assessing a problem or an opportunity.
Table 4.1. A matrix of main stages and sub-stages of a decision making process (taken from Ohlmer et al., 1998, p. 285)
Sub-stages Stage Searching & paying
attention (observation)
Planning Evaluating & choosing Bearing responsibility, including development
of intention Problem
detection Information scanning & paying attention - Consequence evaluation, detection of problem
Checking the choice Problem
definition
Information search & finding options
- Consequence evaluation, choose options to study
Checking the choice Analysis &
choice Information search planning Consequence evaluation, choice of option
Checking the choice Implementation Information search &
clues to outcome - Consequence evaluation, choice of corrective action(s)
Bearing responsibility for final outcome, & feed forward information
If the above concepts of the decision making process are compared, it is clear they have similarities (Table 4.2). All of them recognize the following steps:
a) the process of building awareness, which describes how the farmer first comes across a problem or an opportunity (e.g. new innovations). Here, the farmer may detect a problem from the discrepancy between her/his goals and values, and the outcome of their past decisions. The farmer may also notice some opportunities to further expand her/his business as the farmer receives and seeks new information;
b) the process of clarifying events, which represents the farmer’s active role in obtaining more information so that the farmer can comprehend the problem or opportunity more clearly. The farmer also actively collects some information related to the available alternatives of problem solving;
Table 4.2. Comparison of several concepts of the decision making process (continued on next page)
Standard decision making steps (Castle, Becker &
Nelson, 1987)
Linear model of decision making (Ohlmer, Olson &
Brehmer, 1998)
Revised (matrix) model of decision making (Ohlmer, Olson & Brehmer,
1998)
Innovation-decision process
(Rogers, 1993) Dimara & Skuras (2003) Similarity
Setting goals (in writing) as farmers are goal oriented
Defining values and goals as farmers are goal oriented & use their values & goals as decision benchmarks
Values and goals are set before the decision process
Recognizing problem: identifying any discrepancy between goals & achievement
Problem detection: identifying problem and information seeking
Problem detection
−information seeking & observation; −detecting any possible problem(s) &
evaluating consequence(s); and −responsibility bearing, checking the
choice, & development of intention.
Knowledge stage:
−familiarizing with an innovation; and
−learning the procedure to use it and its function.
Awareness or learning period: −information accumulation period (passive or active/ learning) Process of building awareness: −knowledge accumulation; −problem detection; and −understanding consequence(s). Obtaining information: learning about the consequences & alternative solutions
Problem definition/ information seeking: clarifying the problem and elaborating the available means to deal with the problem
Problem definition
−information seeking & finding problem solving options; −evaluating consequence(s) &
selecting options to further scrutinize; and
−responsibility bearing, checking the choice, & development of intention.
Persuasion stage:
−information seeking (finding the right sources, sufficient amount & quality);
−finding the strategy;
−considering benefits & costs; and −seeking social justifications.
Process of clarifying event: −more extensive information seeking; and −identifying approach to analyze. 66
Table 4.2. Comparison among several concepts of decision making process (continued)
Standard decision making steps (Castle, Becker &
Nelson, 1987)
Linear model of decision making (Ohlmer, Olson &
Brehmer, 1998)
Revised (matrix) model of decision making (Ohlmer, Olson & Brehmer,
1998)
Innovation-decision process
(Rogers, 1993) Dimara & Skuras (2003) Similarity
Considering alternatives: comparing alternative actions based on goals and information collected Making the decision: selecting the most feasible solution
Observation: information processing Analysis:
planning, analyzing and determining a decision Development of intention: mentally applying the chosen decision based on current conditions
Analysis and choice: −information seeking; −planning a decision; −evaluating consequence(s) &
making a decision; and −responsibility bearing &
development of intention to implement the decision.
Decision choice:
−evaluating an innovation based on the performance of own small- scale experiment and/or application by peers; and −making a decision, whether to
adopt, delay or reject the innovation. Evaluation stage: −assessing the economic value of an adoption option through the estimation of the associated costs and benefits of the option Process of evaluating and selecting decision: −planning a decision; −reviewing the benefits
& costs; and −making the decision.
Taking action: implementing the decision Accepting responsibility for the decision Evaluating the decision: assessing outcome and re-assessing the decision Implementation Responsibility bearing: determining the person(s) who will be responsible for the outcome and take a follow-up action given the feedback from the implementation
Implementation
−daily monitoring and evaluation of the progress and outcome; −evaluating expectations & selecting
future strategy to revise decision & improve performance; and −responsibility bearing for final
outcome & information for future action.
Implementation:
−information seeking on the source of the innovation, application procedures & troubleshooting strategies; −considering risks and their mitigation strategy (e.g. re- invention/modification); and −applying the innovation. Confirmation:
−seeking justification for sustaining or revising the decision; and −developing corrective means.
Implementation of a decision and feedback: −information seeking on the performance; and −deciding whether to continue, change or discard the decision.
c) the process of evaluating and selecting a decision, which is the actual decision making process. Here, the farmer incorporates all relevant information into a more structured analysis, evaluates the benefits and costs of each decision alternative, and finally selects the best alternative; and
d) the implementation process, in which the decision maker applies the decision, supervises and evaluates the progress and outcomes. The farmer may take the responsibility for the outcomes and, after evaluating the outcomes, the farmer may determine a follow up action, whether to sustain, modify or discard the current decision and implementation.
The matrix concept created by Ohlmer et al. (1998) and Rogers’s (1993) “innovation- decision process”, in particular, appear to be more progressive than the standard eight-step decision making process. These concepts recognize the feedback
mechanism that only exists during the implementation of the decision (including the small-scale trial). Such practices are also confirmed by some (e.g. Feder et al., 1985; Jangu, 1997; Marra, Pannell, & Abadi Ghadim, 2003; Neill & Lee, 2001) who
observed that the decision is not always final as the farmer learns new things and may revise her/his decisions. These concepts, thus, present decision making as a dynamic process, different from the two-stage decision process suggested by Dimara & Skuras (2003).
Compared to Rogers’s “innovation-decision process”, the matrix concept may reflect farmers’ actual decision making processes, which is often characterized as non-static, non-linear, inconsistent, arbitrary and, sometimes, unstructured. This annuls Rogers’s argument of sequential decision making stages. The inclusion of four sub-stages at each of the decision processes main stages also represents the multiple loops involving repetitive activities such as information seeking, observation, planning, evaluation, development of intention and taking responsibility. This is also in
accordance with Antonides’s concept of a mental process. The routine activities may also represent farmers’ efforts to minimize the impact of uncertainties during the decision making process (Ohlmer et al., 1998).
The matrix concept also accommodates five major attributes that become the milieu of the diverse farmers’ decision making processes. The attributes are as follows (Ohlmer et al., 1998, p. 286):
a) “farmers continually update their problem perceptions, ideas of options, plans
and expectations when new information is obtained;
b) farmers often use a qualitative approach to forming expectations and estimating
consequences expressed in directions from the current condition;
c) farmers prefer a “quick and simple” decision approach over a detailed,
elaborate approach;
d) farmers prefer to collect information and avoid risk through small tests and
incremental implementation; and
e) farmers continually check clues to form their evaluation of long-run actions in a
feed forward and compensation approach, rather than a post-implementation evaluation”.
Rogers’s (1993) “innovation-decision process”, to some extent, also contains the attributes pointed out by Ohlmer et al. (1998) (see Table 4.2). Rogers clarifies the concept of information seeking and processing, as the decision maker is described as focussing her/his search on finding the right sources as well as a sufficient quantity and quality. Furthermore, the recognition of “re-invention” in the implementation stage shows that the decision maker can modify her/his decision right away, either just before or during the implementation. Ohlmer et al. (1998), however, did not consider the “re-invention” practice since they only refer to this as the farmers’ daily monitoring as a means to update their expectations on the outcome, but not to modify the application procedures. In addition, Rogers’s “decision choice” step emphasizes social or peer influences in the decision making process. This is quite relevant, especially in the case of, for example, semi-subsistence farmers who are unable to conduct their own experiment because they have limited resources, and limited access to information and skills (Munshi, 2004; Pomp & Burger, 1995). These farmers usually observe and follow the practices and experience of their neighbours.
Based on the discussion above, one may need to check whether the same decision making process also occurs in the case of resource-poor or semi-commercial farmers in developing countries. The matrix concept (Ohlmer et al., 1998) seems to have potential for explaining the dynamic process of decision making; but it is based on commercially-oriented farmers. Rogers’s concept has also provided a clearer framework, but one might be keen to further elaborate the concept by taking into account the setting and attributes of farmers in developing countries. For example, in the case of technology adoption, the decision makers’ information seeking and processing may be further scrutinized in terms of their association with socio-cultural influences and level of development. Another option is to investigate how poor farmers conduct repetitive activities (as suggested by Ohlmer et al., 1998), as these farmers may need to strategically adjust their limited resources to apply the new technology; while, at the same time, securing their livelihoods.
The last option may imply two sets of possible outcomes. First, this kind of analysis will help reveal more descriptions of farmers’ attributes, for example: risk attitudes, entrepreneurship and information processing capacity. Abadi Ghadim and Pannell (1999) and Just et al. (2003) assert that farmers’ information seeking and processing capacity is correlated with farmers’ risk attitudes. This is quite critical in developing countries as information is often not equally distributed, and at the same time most farmers have a low level of skills (Just et al., 2003). Nevertheless, the interaction between risk attitudes and information in a farmers’ decision making process has not yet been fully explained (Abadi Ghadim & Pannell, 1999; Grisley & Kellog, 1987; Just et al., 2003). The extent to which farmers seek and interpret information may also indicate their entrepreneurial attitudes.
Secondly, an analysis of farmers’ repetitive activities in decision making may reveal the intra-relationship among the members of a farm household. Many studies (e.g. Asfaw & Admassie, 2004; Kaliba, Featherstone, & Norman, 1997; Lawrence,
Sanders, & Ramaswamy, 1999; Sejati et al., 2002) have perceived the role of an intra- household bargaining process in a farm household’s decision making system. The bargaining process is perceived as an important part of the household strategy for
survival (Lawrence et al., 1999), and as a means to moderate the conflict of interests among the family members and between the household’s internal needs and the changes in the environment (McGregor, Rola-Rubzen, & Murray-Prior, 2001;
Romero & Rehman, 2003). Within the household, each member may have a different influence in the bargaining process and her/his involvement can be expected to fill the gap in the household’s information seeking and processing capacity. The extent of the bargaining process is determined by the changes in the status (education, change role of each gender, or other external causes) of the household members (McGregor et al., 2001). The result of this process is a consensus (collective decision) and an equal distribution of outcomes among the household members (McGregor et al., 2001). This is neglected in the analysis by Ohlmer et al. (1998) and Rogers (1993).
Table 4.3. The proposed and improved concept of farmers’ decision making process
Sub-stages Stages or
Steps Searching & paying attention (observati on) Intra-household bargaining process Plan-
ning Evaluating & choosing Bearing responsibility, including the development of intention and the assessment of social compatibility (social bargaining) Problem detection (building awareness) Information scanning & paying attention Discussion among household members - Consequence evaluation, detection of problem
Checking the choice: individual & social compatibility Problem definition (clarifying event) Information search & finding options Discussion and negotiation among household members - Consequence evaluation, choose options to study
Checking the choice: individual & social compatibility Analysis & choice (evaluating & selecting decision) Information search Discussion and negotiation among household members Planning Consequence evaluation, choice of option
Checking the choice: individual & social compatibility Decision implementation & feedback Information search & clues to outcome Discussion and negotiation among household members - Consequence evaluation, choice of correc- tive action(s)
Bearing (individual & social) responsibility for final outcome & feed forward information
Note: underlined texts indicate the modification
Concerning the decision making stages, it can be argued that intra-household negotiation may serve as one of the sub-stages in the matrix concept introduced by
Ohlmer et al. (1998). For example, the exchange of views and bargaining may occur when farmers first discover an opportunity to adopt new innovations. The bargaining process then continues and is repeated as the farmers and/or other household members obtain new information at each decision step (see Table 4.3).
Besides intra-household negotiations, some degree of social bargaining may also influence the farm household’s decision making process. According to some analysts (e.g. Conway, 1987; Scoones & Thompson, 1994; Sejati et al., 2002; Suradisastra, Sejati, Supriatna, & Hidayat, 2002), the influence may come in the form of the social norms and relationships which play an important role in many less-developed farming communities. Social bargaining processes may reflect the farmers’ endeavour to find social reinforcement as they negotiate their interests against social values. An
analysis of the social bargaining process, thus, would clarify the scope of the “responsibility bearing” sub-stage in the matrix concept of Ohlmer et al. (1998). In addition, the analysis is expected to reveal the role and mechanism of peer
observation and socioeconomic networks in influencing the decision making process.
Overall, the discussion provides a basis for developing a more realistic description of a farm household’s decision making system in developing countries. Nevertheless, other aspects of the farmers’ decision making system still require elaboration, particularly those related to how farmers incorporate information into a more structured analysis. This is relevant in the case of farmers in developing countries who face many structural issues and, at the same time, are in the process of moving