Rogers' Theory of the Diffusion of Innovations - Essay Example

Health Sciences and Medicine Diffusion of innovation case study The way in which a new product (or program) diffuses or spreads, i.e. by which it is promoted and adopted by others, determines how effective its promotion has been and how successful the product is in terms of mass acceptance. Rogers (1998; 2003) described this process of diffusion in detail as a social process of convergence that involves, for example, communication and interpersonal networks. He also identified stages, the elements involved in them, and he defined types of adopters based on a scale of innovativeness. After a brief overview of Roger's ideas, two case studies are analysed further below. The stages are as follows (Source for 2-4: Schaalma et al., 2004): 1. Innovation development – This refers to the development of the program 2. Adoption – Uptake of the product by people according to their knowledge and awareness, and assumptions of the program meeting their perceived needs, who are then ready to give it a try. The adopters move from the phases of awareness, interest, trial and adoption. 3. Implementation – Initial use of the program. There are issues of completeness, which refers to the portion of the program actually delivered, and fidelity, which refers to the extent to which it is implemented as originally devised. 4. Maintenance – The institutionalization of the program as a routine practice for the long term. The patterns formed during the early adoption phase either help or constrain diffusion later on (Jrank, 2009). The early stage is therefore very important because it is during this stage that people get their first impressions that have a lasting impact. This period is also typically characterised by a rapid and frequent innovation of the product with an emphasis on variety (Tidd et al., 2001). McCormick (2009) claims that as more people learn about the advantages of the product then they help to spread information about it through their peers who eventually adopt the product themselves as well. The five types of adopters in Rogers' theory of the Diffusion of Innovations are shown in the figure below. These five types are (1) innovators, (2) early adopters, (3) early majority, (4) late majority, and (5) laggards. The real innovators who are the first adopters are usually few. The numbers then increase until it reaches a certain point before falling again in the shape of a normal distribution curve. (Browning & Browning, 2008) Case study I: A Back to Sleep program is implemented to prevent sudden infant death syndrome by teaching caretakers to place an infant on his or her back to sleep. In this case study, the product is not a product but an important piece of information or advice. It is important because it can potentially help in minimising the incidence of sudden infant deaths. The innovators are most likely to be people who are closely associated with the program, other medical professionals and others who are well informed and have heard or read about the advice. In all cases, these are people who actually have infants of their own because otherwise they cannot implement the advice. The early adopters are most likely to be people who are also often in touch with the latest pieces of advice given out by the medical establishment and people who have been personally advised by those in the first category. As this advice is promoted further, more people are likely to follow it who will be the early and late majority adopters. The laggards in this case are likely to be the opposite of the first two categories, i.e. people who are out of touch with medical advice and news in general and those who may have heard about the advice but did not at first believe it could make a difference. Five key determinants of the speed and extent of the diffusion of this innovation that could be most relevant in this case are as follows together with examples: 1. Relative advantage – Is the advice better than the current prevalent practice of not placing an infant on his/her back? 2. Complexity – Is it easy to place an infant on his/her back while sleeping? 3. Impact on social relations – Does the advice have any disruptive impact on the social environment? 4. Communicability – Can the advice be easily and clearly understood? 5. Risk and uncertainty level – Is there any riskin placing infants on their backs while sleeping? The stages for the diffusion in this case are as follows: 1. Innovation development – The identification of the solution to the problem of sudden infant deaths based on observations of the behaviours most likely causing the deaths and the positive impact of the solution in preventing them. 2. Adoption – See types of adopters identifed for this case from innovators to laggards 3. Implementation – This advice is easy to implement in its entirety because it only involves a single action, which is to lay the infant on its back. 4. Maintenance – The practice can easily be sustained by promoting it in child clinics and including it in child care courses. Case study II: Implementation of 'click it' or ticket mobilization in order to encourage people so as to prevent possible injuries and fatalities. In this case study, a product exists but it is regarded as a negative item to possess with the aim for drivers to avoid receiving a ticket by ensuring they buckle up whilst driving. The types of adopters, i.e. those who will heed the warning and ensure they buckle up are likely to be as follows: 1. Innovators – Drivers that are closely connected with the campaign to buckle up and the most safety conscious drivers who are well-informed of such messages through the media and who agree with the practice. There will also likely be drivers who are already implementing the practice but the ones in this category are those who have been influenced by the campaign and decide to implement the practice straight away. 2. Early adopters – These are likely to be drivers that are similar to the above but to a slightly lesser degree but they might also have observed other drivers following the practice and decided to adopt the same. They could also have noticed the campaign being implemented and some drivers receiving tickets or they might have received a ticket themselves and decided to follow the practice. 3. Early majority adopters – These are most likely to be the majority of drivers that have been aware of the campaign, especially through the media or through their driving experience, but were initially reluctant to implement the practice. Some of these might have been influenced by seeing the benefits of implementing the practice. 4. Late majority adopters – These are most likely to be the majority of drivers that have been aware of the campaign but have very reluctantly implemented the practice either because they found it inconvenient or they are becoming bothered by the risks of getting of a ticket. Many of them will probably have received tickets themselves and many of them may still not agree with the benefits. Some could also be drivers who drive infreqnely and have not known about the campaign until now through observation. 5. Laggards – These are most likely to be the remaining drivers that have tried to deliberately hold out from buckling up for as long as possible but are now compelled to do so to avoid getting a ticket. Some of them could also be less frequent, new or foreign drivers that have only come to know either from observation or getting a ticket. By now, many will have heard about the campaign, especially through the media or from being told by others. Five key determinants of the speed and extent of the diffusion of this innovation that could be most relevant in this case are as follows together with examples: 1. Relative advantage – Is it better to buckle up than not to buckle up? 2. Trialability – Is it possible to drive while being buckled up to check if the habit can be adopted for good. 3. Reversibility – Is it possible to discontinue the practice of buckling up (and avoid getting a ticket)? 4. Time – Is it possible to buckle up quickly (and without any inconvenience)? 5. Risk and uncertainty level – Can the practice be adopted with minimal risk and uncertainty? The stages for the diffusion in this case are as follows: 5. Innovation development – The identification of the solution to the problem of injuries and fatalities on the roads based on observations of incidents as well as those incidents in which the drivers/passengers buckled up and their lives were saved. 6. Adoption – See types of adopters identifed for this case from innovators to laggards 7. Implementation – This practice is easy to implement in its entirety because it only involves a single action, which is to buckle up before driving. 8. Maintenance – The practice can easily be sustained by continuing to enforce the ticketing policy, through frequent media campaigns to remind drivers of the benefits and the law, and by placing notices to remind them of the same. Sources Browning, Larry & Browning, Larry D. (2008). Information and communication technologies in action. Illustrated and revised edition. Routledge. Jrank. (2009). Diffusion of Innovations and Communication – Diffusion processes, Innovation attributes, Communication channels. Jrank encyclopedia. Retrieved November, 2011 from http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/6503/Diffusion-of-Innovations-and-Communication.html. McCormick, Liz. (2009). Using the Diffusion of Innovations Theory: Definitions and Historical Content of the Theory. Suite101. Retrieved November 2011 from http://marketingpr.suite101.com/article.cfm/diffusion_of_innovations_theory. Rogers, Everett M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. Free Press. Rogers, Mark. 1998. The definition and measurement of innovation. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 10/98. Retrieved November 2011 from http://www.melbourneinstitute.com/wp/wp1998n10.pdf. Schaalma, Herman; Reinders, Jo; Matasu, Melkioury; Kaaya, Sylvia & Klepp, Knut-Inge. (2004). When the researchers have gone home to write their articles, diffusion and implementation of school-based HIV-prevention programs in Tanzania. East African Journal of Public Health, Vol. 1, No. 1. Tidd et al. (2001). In Stamm, Bettina Von. (2008, p. 237). Managing innovation, design and creativity. 2nd illustrated edition. John Wiley and Sons. Read More