INNOVATION ADOPTION

The adoption of such new practices will seldomly be as smoothly as planned. The implementation of new methods can be countered by many actors or factors within an organisation. This will also be the case for the implementation of crowd-sourcing. To understand the mechanisms behind the implementation of

innovations, this sections looks at three different adoption models: (1) Theory of

Reasoned Action, (2) Technology Acceptance Model and (3) Rate of adoption of innovations. These frameworks will help to identify the important factors within organisational adoption theory and guide further data collection.

Organisational theory is a broad and well-developed field with many perspectives. While there are many more variants of the theory available, this study will only use the frameworks of Azjen and Fishbein (1980), Davis (1989) and Rogers

34 (2003). Rogers (2003) has been one of the main scholars on this particular topics for many years. His theory –after introduction in 1968- have been revised and adopting new insights and perspectives, making it still one of the most influential organisational theories.

The framework of Davis (1989) has been selected over other organisational frameworks, as this is one of the main theories linking technology to organisational theory (Lederer, Maupin, Sena, & Zhuang, 2000; Legris, Ingham, & Collerette, 2003). The TAM model and its measures have been proven to:

“… highly reliable and may be used in a variety of contexts.” (King & He, 2006, p. 751)

This application has not been described earlier, and has been used by other scholars to explain technology acceptance in other fields REF. The TRA model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) has been discussed since it offers the basis for the technology acceptance model of Davis (1989). Therefore, it is an important theory to discuss in this study.

THEORY OF REASONED ACTION

To understand how technological innovations are implemented and

institutionalized, Davies introduced the Technology Acceptance Model. This

model identifies the factors contributing to the level of technology acceptance within organisations. It has been built upon the earlier formulated framework by Ajzen and Fishbein (David, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). This model is a general theory concerning the behaviour of individuals regarding change or situations.

Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) argued in their Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), that

the actual behaviour intention (BI) is a sum of attitudes (A) and subjective norms (SN) leading up towards the actual behaviour of individuals.

!"# = #%# + '(

BI is the measure of the strength of the intention of an individual taking a certain action. It is defined by the sum of both the attitude toward behaviour (A) and the set of subjective norms (SN) present. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) define the A as the positive or negative feelings an individual has towards desired target behaviour. It relates to the attitudes of the individuals and the willingness to show such target behaviour. The subjective norms (SN) are further defined as the person’s perception about the desire of people -important to him- to perform or not perform the set-out target behaviour.

35 In addition, the model of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) identifies the attitude towards the target behaviour as the sum of both subjective and rational probability of the consequences intended with the target behaviour.

% = )_*+_*#

bi is defined as the subjective probability of an individual that performing the

target behaviour b will lead to the intended consequences i. Together with the evaluative response e of the intended behaviour, this makes the sum of the attitude formation towards change. This sum helps to explain the behaviour of individuals when facing changes or other desired behaviour.

The other factor contributing to the intended behaviour of individuals facing

change, are the subjective norms SN from within the organisation and the

individual. This subjective norm is theorized by the TRA as the product of both normative beliefs of an individual (nbi) and the motivation to comply (mci):

'( = ,)_*-._*#

The sum of these functions create a model to analyse human behaviour towards change and the motivation to comply to the desired behaviour. Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) have created a very general theory applicable to almost all different situations of organisational reform and change. Yet, the theory of the authors is mainly focused on the psychology behind human behaviour and does not take the influence of external factors into account within the formal model. For organisational reform regarding technological implementation and influence, external factors can play a decisive role in the acceptance of change. Factors such as design characteristics, development- and implementation processes, political issues, etcetera are not explicitly included in the model and can only have an indirect influence on human behaviour.

TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL

To theorize technological change, Davis (1989) introduced the Technology

Acceptance Model (TAM) to create a theoretical framework for technological acceptance after technology is introduced within an organisation. Its aim is to provide a more focused view on the role of technology in the model of Ajzen and Fishbein (1980). The model seeks to understand and explain the motivations for

36 computerized change acceptance, by explaining user behaviour and the influence of outside factors. A critical part the TAM adds, is the particular inclusion of external factors contributing to the acceptance of technology within organisations.

Davis (1989) identifies two main factors contributing to the acceptance of newly implemented technology within organisations: (1) perceived usefulness and (2) perceived ease of use. These factors indicate the degree wherein an individual is open towards digitalized change and will actually use the innovation in the future. The perceived usefulness is the idea practitioners have whether or not the product will enhance their job performance or make their processes easier to manage. Having a positive perception about the future consequences of the new product or technology will significantly improve the success of the eventual implementation. Davis also identifies the expectations about the ease of use as an important factor influencing the adaptability of individuals facing technological change.

Figure 4: Technology Acceptance Model (David, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989)

The theory acknowledges the fact that technological change is not only influenced by internal and personal perceptions, but can also be hindered or helped by other factors such as political preference and technological skills. Both factors, are – according to the TAM- therefore influenced by the external factors relating to the technological change. The actual attitude towards eventual change is the product of these two values (U+E) and shape the behaviour of individuals when facing change.

Just like the TRA model, Davis formalizes the relationship between the attitude of an individuals and the behavioural intention to show the desired target behaviour. In the TAM, this behaviour is often related to technological change and the implementations of new digital measures (David, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989). All these factors eventually shape and influence the fact whether or not people will actually use new systems that are implemented in the organisation. Unlike the TRA model, the TAM includes this direct link since a direct connection between perception on one hand and the intention on the other hand has been found in prior research.

37

Both these theories formalize and model the factors influencing human behaviour facing changing scenarios. Although such theories do not offer a full understanding of the actual human behaviour, it creates an empirically grounded model to identify and map the factors responsible for human behaviour and attitudes towards change. The framework of Davis even creates a specific model regarding technological change and the impact on human behaviour by external factors. By combining the knowledge of these models, one can identify how change can be affected by both internal- and personal attitudes as well as external factors such as political beliefs.

Despite the relative attention for external factors in Davis’ model, the social environment is not included in the model itself. The following model of Rogers (2003) includes this more direct influence of contextual factor on the implementation of innovation and new technologies.

RATE OF ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS:

New, system-changing innovations or -implementations can have direct consequences for individuals, organisations and society. In 1962, Everett Rogers

introduced an overarching theory regarding organisational reform and diffusion of

innovations. He defined diffusion as a form of social change which is part of a process that alters the structure and the function of a social system. This happens –according to Rogers- when ideas are:

“invented, diffused, and adopted or rejected, leading to certain consequences”.

How and when the diffusion is picked up within an organisation and the speed of the actual process is dependent on various variables (Rogers, 2003).

Rogers introduced the notion of adaption speed as the relative speed with which an innovation is adopted and used by members of a social system or organisation. He identified five factors contributing to the rate wherein change is adopted and diffusion is completed: (1) Perceived attributes of innovations, (2) Type of innovation-decision, (3) Communication channels, (4) Nature of the social system and (5) Extent of change agents’ promotional efforts. The model provided by Rogers offers a general theory and an overview of the different factors which can influence the diffusion of change. In the end, the model and framework help to explain the success or failure of implementation attempts and aids in the identification of decisive factors in the adoption trajectory.

38 The factor of perceived attributes of innovations are divided in several sub- categories, each influencing the total factor of the attitudes towards change. The first factor is the importance of relative advantage. Just as in the earlier two models, the ratio between the relative advantages on one hand, and the costs of adaption on the other hand, is identified as an explicit factor within Rogers’ model. Whether or not the advantages weigh up against the costs is dependent on several factors, such as initial investments, level of discomfort, social prestige, etc. All these factors contribute to the eventual cost-benefit analysis. This determines the relative advantage of the proposed change in the future.

Problematic in many implementation trajectories is that these advantages are difficult to validate. This creates a difficult situation for managers and those advocating the innovation, since without such demonstrative capabilities, it is harder to convince the majority users to adopt the innovation.

The second factor shaping the attributes of the innovation is the compatibility of

the new technology. The concept refers to the level wherein the innovation or idea is aligned with current beliefs and practices or with past experiences of the organisation in question. If the idea is very different to the earlier practice, it will run into more resistance than slight changes to the status-quo. According to Rogers (2003), there is an important balance to be found between: (1) sociocultural beliefs of an organisation, (2) previously introduced ideas and (3) a

39 client’s need for innovation. All these factors contribute to the overarching compatibility of an introduced technology and change.

Complexity, the third contributing factor, is the perceived difficultly to understand and use the introduced innovation. The harder it is to understand, the more resistance during will occur the implementation phase. Although for many implementations the actual complexity will not be a decisive factor for the overarching perceived attributes, it can prove to be a highly important barrier for individuals to embrace change within the organisation.

The fourth factor contributing to the attributes, is the trialability of an innovation. This concept refers to the possibility of an innovation being tested by a (small) group, before rolling it out inside the whole organisation. Such trials allow individuals to become more accustomed to the product and helps to take away the uncertainty behind the implementation of the innovation.

Lastly, the factor of perceived attributes of innovations is influenced by the observability of change. The notion of observability is the degree wherein the consequences of the change can be observed by others. Observable consequences allow individuals to communicate and discuss the observations with others. This helps to create internal change advocates and improve insights into the consequences of the implementation. Rogers (2003) states that an innovation with more positive is accepted more easily.

The second overarching factor contributing to the rate of adoption is the Type of

Innovation-Decision. This refers to the path an organisation takes to implement new technologies or initiate change within the organisation. Since organisations are a collection of different perspectives, individuals and goals, there are many factors which contribute to the implementation speed of the innovation. Rogers introduces three distinct categories, identifying the different approaches how organisations can initiate implementation processes:

-" Optional innovation-decisions: This refers to a situation wherein individuals can make the eventual decision whether or not they’re going to use the newly introduced innovation. This decision is of an independent nature, so there is no obligation towards other members of the organisation.

-" Collective innovation-decisions: In this case, choices either to adopt or reject the innovation are made on a collective basis. Members of the organisation base their decision upon a consensus among all other individuals.

40 -" Authority innovation-decisions: Herein the choice to adopt a new innovation is made by a small group of individuals who hold a certain power or authority over the rest of the members of the group. Such cases of change are usually initiated by the management level of an organisation, to be subsequently adopted on the operational level. Yet, the individual member of the organisation does not have a choice whether or not they would like to implement such decisions.

The third influencing factor on the speed of adoption, is the communication channels used by the organisation to exchange information and experiences about the innovations. To understand the used channels and effectiveness of communication, Rogers identities two scales wherein the communication efforts can fall: (1) interpersonal versus mass media and (2) localiteversus cosmopolite. The position on these scales has implications on the different role the communication has creating knowledge and persuading individuals to embrace change. The combination of certain aspects can help to convince different group within the organisation.

The distinction between mass media and interpersonal communication is a classic

category in media studies (Jensen, 2010; McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999; Mutz & Martin, 2001; Scheufele, 2002). Mass media is categorized by the ability of a few individuals to reach huge audience in a relatively short amount of time. Mass media channels such as radio, television and newspapers helps to change weakly held attitudes and create knowledge among the receivers of a message. Interpersonal communication has much more potential in changing and refuting strong held attitudes towards innovations. Since there is the possibility to individualize the communication, it allows the source to better deal with the resistance and the emotions of the receiver. This kind of communication is often carried out by face-to-face exchange of attitudes and arguments to pursue individuals and groups within an organisation or system.

Unlike mass media channels, interpersonal communication offers a two-way exchange of information and attitudes. This helps to overcome emotional and social barriers and allows the sender to communicate more effectively for certain individuals. Unfortunately, interpersonal contact is more time-consuming than mass media. There has to be a lot of personal contact to pursue individuals, whereas with mass-media the spread and reach is much higher with less invested energy.

The second category is the difference between localite and cosmopolite

41 outside the social system to convince individuals to embrace the coming change. In the case of mass media, almost all instances are more of a cosmopolite nature, whereas interpersonal channels can be a combination of both, but then to have more elements of a localite nature. Such cosmopolite interpersonal channels can for example consist of outside advisors or change agents to present innovation within the organisation. In his theory, Rogers argues that cosmopolite channels are more effective while acquiring knowledge and less effective when dealing with persuasion of attitudes. Localite channels have more potential convincing individuals to change, but are less effective in informing these individuals about the actual change.

Fourthly, Rogers argues that the nature of the social system has severe

implications on the rate of adoption of innovation. Organisations wherein change is taking place is a set of different individuals, groups and sub-organisations, with a common goal set out to accomplish. These common goals shape and characterize the organisation in the implementation phase of innovations and change. As social structures and norms influence the internal affairs of the organisation, so do these factors influence change within the organisation. Common behavioural patterns and organisational standards could prove to be important factors enabling or restraining change and innovation.

The promotional efforts of the change agents within an organisation is defined by Rogers as the final factor contributing to the rate of adoption of the innovation. While this does not have a direct and linear effect on the eventual implementation of an innovation, there can be a considerable long-term pay-off to the management layers when using change agents. These individual actors can promote the future effects of an innovation more accurately and personally than management layers. The actual efforts will –according to Rogers- help to generate more speed in the rate of adoption when invested considerable time and effort in such promotional campaigns. It should be therefore included into the formal model of Rogers.