Confirmation / Reconsideration

Confirmation of an adoption decision can mean that an actor continues using the innovation or continues to reject the innovation. Rogers (2003 p.169) states that,

Confirmation takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to conflicting messages about the innovation

This can then lead to reconsideration of the decision that can be considered as a feedback loop where an actor can continue to gather information on an innovation and then revise their adoption decision.

This stage is similar to that proposed by Rogers (2003) and is supported by the data collection. Rogers (2003) model focused more on the adoption process and showed a side-line where an actor can reconsider their decision. This is not surprising as Rogers (2003) expressed a need for more rejection studies and that most diffusion studies were based on adoption case studies. Therefore, the decision was made to combine the confirmation stage with the reconsideration aspect to fully recognise the true flexibility of an actor’s diffusion journey.

All adopters reported that they would continue to use the NRM in the future and could see no reason to reconsider. All rejecters confirmed that they were happy with their current decision, but would reconsider if there were a significant change in the needs of the industry overall in terms of the use of a standard method of measurement or there would have to be some commercial benefit to change. Most rejecters did state that they thought that they would be forced to adopt at some point in the future, but could not really explain why, and there was a certain amount of inevitability about the NRM becoming common practice. Having said this, none of the respondents were going to change their decision without a strong influencing factor, and based on this and the current procurement methods adopted within the industry it is doubtful that these respondents will have to reconsider their decision any time soon, or that the adoption of the NRM will ever reach critical mass (Valente 1995), which in turn minuses the effect of thresholds on the actors.

5.7 Diffusion Concepts

The three diffusion concepts, Cohesion, Structural Equivalence and Thresholds, have been identified and discussed in previous chapters. To recap, these concepts focus on the way in which innovations are communicated amongst actors within a social system.

Rogers (2003) does not specifically identify these concepts in his work, although there are references to similar aspects throughout such as his discussions on communication flow (Cohesion) and critical mass (Thresholds). Although not directly addressed, it is apparent that Rogers (2003) was working beyond these concepts and felt that no single concept adequately explained the diffusion process. His work can therefore be regarded as superseding these concepts and therefore no further consideration is required, but this would miss important aspects of the nature of social contagion and would limit the understanding of an actor’s diffusion journey.

Valente (1995) and Larsen (2005) recognised this in their work, with Larsen (2005) proposing that the individual concepts do not alone explain the diffusion process, but that they can all influence the process differently and at different stages. This is an interesting proposition and one that was explored through the primary data collection and will now be discussed in more detail with regard to the research context.

5.7.1 Cohesion

Cohesion is the earliest diffusion model and Katz (1964) observed that it is based around face-to-face contact and communication. Valente (1995 p.12) refers to this as social contagion within a network perspective and states “contagion refers to how individuals monitor others and imitate their behaviour to adopt or not adopt

innovations”. The role of communication has been discussed already, and the role that both strong and weak ties have in the diffusion of innovation is well documented (Granovetter 1973). This research has so far shown that the role of weak ties is insignificant when applied to a specific work based context such as that of the QS within the construction industry. This therefore limits the influence and impact that Cohesion can have upon an actor within this social setting.

Larsen (2005) demonstrated that Cohesion was a good fit with the initial awareness stage of the diffusion process and then the later promotion aspects, which has not been

supported by the findings of this research, which has demonstrated that none of the respondents had spoken to anyone outside of their own organisation about the NRM.

No respondents utilised direct face-to-face communication with regard to the awareness stage either, with most reporting that awareness came from either email correspondence or trade press. The issue of discussing anything with competitors was raised several times with DM – CE-C-£M-M stating “Obviously (we) don’t talk to our competitors”.

Overall the feeling from the respondents was that they all felt isolated from other QSs due to the pressures of work and the confidentiality that projects can bring.

Respondents did report that they felt that they would be influenced by face-to-face communication, but that this would only be through those who they knew well, which supports the earlier discussion of the use of strong ties, as opposed to weak ties. The fact that this had not happened in a single example is interesting and demonstrates that the lines of communication within the industry are limited in both direction and reach, but that the impact of direct communication can still be a consideration if utilised.

For the purposes of this research and within the bounds of the research sample it can be surmised that Cohesion does not play a significant role in any aspect of the QS’s diffusion journey with regard to professional practice innovations.

5.7.2 Structural Equivalence

Structural Equivalence argues that another phenomenon is more influential in explaining how diffusion actually occurs and is based around actor’s positions, their perception of equivalence and blocks of equivalent actors. Valente (1995) did not consider Structural Equivalence as being relevant to his work as he was concerned with network analysis, which charts communication channels, not people’s perceptions of equivalent others. This is a good example of how diffusion scholars have taken differing views of the influencing factors within their research.

Larsen (2005) found that Structural Equivalence was a poor fit throughout the diffusion process with the only minor exception being at the initial awareness stage. The findings of the primary research demonstrated that respondents felt isolated and that there was very limited opportunity to observe others and gain knowledge of their professional

practices. Respondents did report that seeing others using a new professional practice would trigger them to find more information, so this could be considered as providing an actor with their initial awareness. Kale and Arditi (2010) made similar findings in their research and showed that construction companies are more influenced by their own internal operations and workload than that of other companies within the same social system.

5.7.3 Thresholds

Threshold concepts argue that an actor engages in behaviour based upon the ratio of actors in the social system already engaged in the behaviour (Granovetter, 1978).

Within a diffusion setting Valente (1995) suggests that diffusion thresholds are the proportion of prior adopters in an individual’s personal network when the individual adopts.

Larsen’s (2005) main focus was on Thresholds and he found that they had a high relevance at three key stages, namely the decision-making, adoption and use stages. He also proposed that Thresholds need considering at all stages of the diffusion process and that they influence an actor throughout. One of the main contributions of Larsen’s study was the introduction of the Awareness Threshold Level (AwTL), for both system and actor levels, which suggests that each system/actor will have a threshold with regard to their awareness and their ability to become aware. He also introduced the same concept for the adoption stage with the Adoption Threshold Level (AdTL), again, both at an actor and system level.

This classification was used to demonstrate that Thresholds influence both the actor and the system at the awareness and decision stages.

The findings of this research demonstrated that no respondents had made any attempt to discover how many others were aware or had adopted the NRM. This lack of

knowledge about the wider industry means that the Threshold concept cannot influence the actor at any stage of the diffusion process, as they have no number, or perception of number in which to measure their individual threshold. However, Thresholds were raised by respondents, but in terms of the weight of the industry forcing the adoption of

the NRM. Numerous respondents highlighted this as they were happy with their current practices but appreciated that if the wider industry was moving in a particular direction then they would have to go with it or risk disadvantaging themselves commercially. No specifics were identified, but there was an understanding that no respondents wanted to be left behind once the wider industry started to adopt the NRM.

Therefore, there is only limited evidence to support the Threshold concept. Firstly, the discussions identified above, and secondly at the awareness stage, one respondent was not aware while all others were. This demonstrates that he hadn’t reached his own threshold, and maybe more importantly that the industry has not reached its own

threshold, because there are still actors who are unaware. Therefore, the industry has not reached critical mass as far as the awareness of NRM is concerned. The findings do support the consideration of thresholds at both the awareness and decision stages, on both an actor and a system level. This is bounded within the research context and is an important area for further study, as it can be seen from the responses that actors would be influenced by the weight of the industry, perceived or otherwise, and that this could have a significant impact on the diffusion process.