- Peter Claeys added an answer:7Has someone conducted research on trolleybus transport from socio-economic point of view?
I am looking for scientists interested in studying trolleybus transport with special regard to its social and economical conditions. I am particularly focused on impact of electric public transport (for ex. trolleybus transport) on real estates prices. On the other hand I analyze effects of implementing innovative technologies and sustainable development policies on trolleybus transport.Following
- Paul Stephens added an answer:9Does a quantitative measurement of disruptive innovation exist?
I am seeking a quantitative instrument to measure disruptive innovation. The goal is to utilize the instrument (possibly survey) to measure whether competency-based education is a true disruptive innovation in the higher education sector. Any assistance would be appreciated.
Many thanks. Please send me the full email address. PaulFollowing
- Fawad Sadiq added an answer:7What are the tasks of Disruptive Innovation?
What are the tasks of Disruptive Innovation?
I was reading a research article (Kanter, 1988) in which the author explained the tasks of innovation. I was wondering if tasks of DI have been researched on the similar lines before, though i couldn't find anything on the internet during initial search. Any thoughts?
Thank You Patrice and Vitalii for your valuable comments. Considering Disruptive Innovation as a subset of Innovation with radical characteristics on Market dimension, how would one can define the phenomenon of Disruption at individual level? Or to say Disruptive output of an individual?Following
- Faris Alshubiri added an answer:27What is the difference between innovation and creation of business , can any one give some quantitative equations of how to measure the innovation ?
I want to know the difference between innovation and creation of business and how to measure this concept .
Dear Dr. Shouvik Sanyal
Thank you very much for your contribution . In fact it is useful and interesting for me .
- Nabila Nisha added an answer:7How does innovation affect development banks?How to quickly get the effect of innovation in the banking sector.
- Gbenga Odukale added an answer:33Can Disruptive innovation be applied in Product, Service and People ?
People want to buy new products and services which are with sustainable feature connecting their dreamy utility and affordable price.
Does Disruptive innovation bring in quicker obsolete products and services ?
Do people really know before buying these products or is it inducement to try new, knowing well that a newer version will come in quick ?
When the Isrealites wanted solution so badly in order to get out of Egypt, a Disruptive SOLUTION packaged as MOSES was sent by God. This was a great disruption to the Egyptians, but a great solution to the Isrealites. When slavery in America had reached its horrific height, a Disruptive SOLUTION packaged as ABRAHAM LINCOLN was sent by Life. A great disruption to some whites and their black benefactors (See The Film: ROOTS), but a great solution to those blacks who are simple and gentle at heart. History is lined with many such events and the trend is still present today, only wearing a different mask.
Life brings us against dead ends and we need to be INNOVATIVE to surmount the walls. When the challenge is a run for dear life, an impromptu innovative method to
absolute escape is NEVER seen as disruptive. But when the innovative method is about a way of doing something, thus saving 60% of cost, time and energy, then it
becomes disruptive to existing methods. Disruption in this sense connotes INERTIA, STAGNANCY, RESISTANCE TO GROWTH and at worst PRIMITIVENESS.
I came to know about the phrase, Disruptive Innovation, around 2003 when I was trying to figure why the embassies in Nigeria, whom we notified about ECourier in 2001, behaved the way they behaved. Except for the Isrealis Embassy who sent documents of encouragement. In effect, the words Disruptive/Disruption are highly negative when paired with INNOVATION. Innovation is about life, it is about growth, it is about SOLUTION. These are not things we discuss from the comfort of our positions. WE NEED TO GO THERE, TO SEE TO PERSONS TRULY IN OF SOLUTION. Just like is said on Cable Network News (CNN): GO THERE.
One-Square-Meter, a CNN program, featured a documentary on NTU-Singapore, an academic envoronment comming up with a new setting for university and a new method for learning. I hope this Seeting/Method will not be termed DISRUTIVE.
- Mutende Musonda added an answer:8What's the difference between technological change and innovation?I have been studying innovation and I can't understand what is the difference between these topics.Technological change refers to alterations in methods of doing things while innovation is mainly about coming up with and implementing new viable ideas and may include improving on the already existing thoughts.Following
- Sílvio Manuel da Rocha Brito added an answer:8Are there any specific scales to measure the innovation resistance from the consumers' point of view?
I would like to know if there are any scales to measure innovation resistance. The resistance to any innovative/new product would be considered.
You can read this article:
A Model of Innovation Resistance
S. Ram, University of Arizona
[ to cite ]:
S. Ram (1987) ,"A Model of Innovation Resistance", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, eds. Melanie Wallendorf and Paul Anderson, Provo, UT : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 208-212.
[ direct url ]:
Advances in Consumer Research Volume 14, 1987 Pages 208-212
A MODEL OF INNOVATION RESISTANCE
S. Ram, University of Arizona
[I wish to thank Jagdish N. Sheth and ACR reviewers for their comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript.]
The vast literature on innovations has predominantly restricted itself to the adoption and diffusion perspectives (Gatignon & Robertson, 1985). In fact, this restricted view extends across the numerous disciplines that have examined the innovation process: rural sociology (Rogers, 1983), geography (Brown, 1981). medical sociology (Coleman et.al.. 1957). cultural anthropology (Barnett. 1953). economics (Mansfield. 1961). and marketing (Bass. 1969; Mahajan & Muller. 1979). The chief reason for this has been the "pro- innovation bias" of researchers (Rogers. 1983). and their tendency to classify late adopters as "laggards." This, in turn. is based on the premise that all innovations are good for the consumer and are surefire improvements over existing product substitutes. If this were indeed true. one would be at a loss to explain the high rate of new product failure in the economy (Booz, Allen & Hamilton. 1981). The problem has been compounded by the fact that. but for a handful of studies, past research has been devoted primarily to the study of the adoption and diffusion of successful innovations alone.
Innovations impose change on the consumer. and resistance to change is a normal consumer response. Not all change is necessarily healthy and resistance on its own merit may be desirable and useful (Klein, 1967; Stiles & Robinson, 1973). Some scholars have, thus, suggested that viewing innovations from the adoption and diffusion perspectives should be de-emphasized, and studying the process of innovation resistance must be given attention: " . . . the vast majority of people who have no a priori desire to change may be more typical and even more rational than a small minority of individuals who seek change for its own sake rather than, or in addition to, the intrinsic value of the innovations. Therefore. it is about time we respect to individuals who resist change. understand their psychology of resistance and utilize this knowledge in the development and promotion of innovations rather than thrust upon them preconceived innovations.." (Sheth. 1981).
More importantly, Innovation Resistance is not the obverse of Innovation Adoption. Adoption begins only after the initial resistance offered by the consumers is overcome. Thus, it is the Resistance perspective which looks at what happens to the innovation since the time it is conceived. If the resistance is too high. the innovation dies and there is no adoption. Further. resistance and adoption can coexist during the life of an innovation. Hence, it is quite important that innovation resistance per se is studied. The objective of this paper is to develop a model of innovation resistance. identify the factors that affect resistance and suggest testable propositions in this neglected perspective of innovation research.
Innovation and Innovation Resistance
At the outset, let us define innovation and innovation resistance.
At a very general level, an innovation has been defined as an "...idea, practice or object that people see as different" (Zaltman & Wallendorf. 1983). From a marketer's point of view. the definition needs to be more focussed: thus, an innovation is defined as a product which is perceived by the consumer as new. This perceived newness may be due to change(s) in just one attribute of the product (e.g. a new shape for a wine bottle). or radical change in the product concept (e.g. 8 Picturephone instead of the "voice-only" telephones). A firm may come up with an "intended" innovation - however. if the consumer fails to perceive newness. then the firm has a different problem on its hand. The lack of adoption. in this case. is not due to consumer resistance to the new product. but due to failure on the part of the firm to stimulate optimal newness. Addressing the causes for and solutions to this problem is beyond the scope of this paper. What emerges from the foregoing discussion, however. is that what is perceived to be new by a firm need not necessarily be an innovation to the consumer. Yet, every product in the market will be a potential innovation for consumers who perceive it to be so. Further. innovation resistance is triggered off only if the consumer perceives a product to be an innovation. It is from this perspective that the study of innovation resistance has been approached here.
"Resistance to change may be defined as any conduct that serves to maintain status quo in the face of pressure to alter the status quo" (Zaltman Q Wallendorf. 1983) and is associated with the degree to which individuals feel themselves threatened by change. Innovation Resistance is the resistance offered by consumers to changes imposed by innovations. To the extent that consumers can suffer changes in the way they acquire information about. purchase. use or dispose of nev products. innovation resistance is but a special version of resistance to change. Several theories in psychology explicitly deal with resistance to change (Newcomb. 1953; Osgood & Tannenbaum. 1955; Heider, 1958). All these theories suggest that consumers have an intrinsic desire for psychological equilibrium. Any change imposed on their behavior has the potential to disturb this equilibrium the consumer thus more often opts for resisting the change than going through a disturbing process of readjustment. In other words. resistance would seem to be a normal response of consumers when confronted with innovations.
A Model of Innovation Resistance
Based on past literature, the Innovation Resistance of a consumer can be viewed as dependent on three sets of factors: Perceived Innovation Characteristics. Consumer Characteristics. and. Characteristics of Propagation Mechanisms (See Figure A).
A consumer is exposed to an innovation through direct contact with the innovation and through one or more of several propagation mechanisms. If the consumer perceives a high degree of change in using the innovation. then he resists it. If the innovation encounters consumer resistance, then it needs to be modified by the firm to suit consumer needs and reduce the resistance. The most important characteristic for an innovation to be successful is its amenability to modification. The modification to be made would depend on what caused the resistance: if the resistance vas due to lack of compatibility. the modification would attempt to improve the compatibility of the innovation; if the perceived relative disadvantage caused the resistance. the would need to reduce this. If the innovation cannot be modified. consumer resistance cannot be overcome and it is bound to be rejected. If it can be modified. then the modification is effected and the never version of the innovation is once again exposed to the consumer. The cycle is repeated leading to ultimate acceptance or failure of the innovation.
A MODEL OF INNOVATION RESISTANCE
The model of Innovation Resistance is set in the contest of Cultural, Situational and Social factors, since a variation in each of these can affect Resistance. The impact of these factors is not addressed in this paper. Let us now examine how each of the three major groups of factors - Perceived Innovation Characteristics, Consumer Characteristics, and Characteristics of Propagation Mechanisms affect Innovation Resistance.
Perceived Innovation Characteristics
The characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by the consumer, determine the amount of resistance generated. Rogers (1962) has enumerated five important characteristics of an innovation: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Perceived Risk, Trialability, and Communicability.
The Relative Advantage of an innovation may be in the form of economic gain or in the form of cost savings. The costs that are saved could be either financial, such as investment costs. or social, such as ridicule, ostracism or expulsion from peer groups (Homans. 1961). The innovation could also provide improved performance at comparatively lower costs - in other words, higher "value." If the Innovation provides a low relative advantage over existing substitutes (or, in fact. provides higher relative disadvantage). then consumers are more likely to resist it. One must note that a high cost disadvantage (say a $100 price disadvantage) could operate differently on generating consumer resistance than a low cost advantage (a $5 price advantage).
P1: The higher the perceived relative disadvantage (or lover the perceived relative advantage). the higher the innovation resistance.
Compatibility of an innovation is "...the degree to which an innovation is perceived as consistent with the existing values. past experiences and needs of the receiver" (Rogers & Shoemaker. 1971). Extending this definition, compatibility represents not only consistency with the existing values of the consumer, but also with traditional and cultural values, and with current lifestyles of the consumer. Linked to compatibility is the notion of pervasiveness. Pervasiveness of an innovation is the degree to which it relates to and requires changes or adjustments on the part of the consumer (Barnett, 1953). The higher the pervasiveness, the more the behavioral change. For example, when a manager, who is used to a personal secretary, is asked to rely on a central word-processing pool (of secretaries) for his secretarial needs, s/he is confronted with a high degree of behavioral adjustment (pervasiveness). The innovation is incompatible with the manager's current lifestyle - s/he no longer has the benefit of a flexible, one-on-one relationship with a personal secretary - and this may create resistance to the concept of the word-processing secretarial pool.
P2: The lower the perceived compatibility (or higher the pervasiveness) of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
Perceived Risk is the risk associated with adopting the innovation, and can be of several types: physical risk, functional risk (performance uncertainty), psychological risk and social risk. The level of perceived risk depends on the type of innovation. "Minor" or "Continuous" innovations (Robertson, 1971) have lower levels of perceived risk for the consumer. while "Major" or "Discontinuous" innovations threaten disruption of routine behavior and have higher levels of perceived risk associated with them.
P3: The higher the levels of any of the perceived risk components (physical, functional, psychological or social), the higher the innovation resistance.
Trialability of an innovation relates to how easily the innovation can be tried by the consumer prior to adoption, and impacts on the perceived risk associated with the innovation. If, for instance. a product based on an entirely new technology cannot be tried by the consumer prior to purchase, then the consumer is likely to perceive a high level of risk in purchasing the product. If. on the other hand, the consumer has a successful trial with the product, the risk associated with the product is likely to decrease. Related to trialability is the concept of divisibility of the innovation. Divisibility measures whether an innovation can be attempted in stages.
P4: The lower the trialability of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
P5: The lower the divisibility of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
Communicability of an innovation is the ease and effectiveness with which the results of an innovation can be disseminated to others (Rogers & Shoemaker, 1971). In the contest of innovations, this would imply the ease with which the benefits of the product can be conveyed to the consumer. Communicability has two components: tangibility of the benefits from adopting the innovation, and ability of the marketer to communicate the benefits. If either or both of these components is lacking, then the innovation is likely to meet with high resistance.
P6: The lower the communicability of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
The complexity of an innovation arises from two dimensions: complexity of the idea (is it easy to understand?), and complexity of execution (is it easy to implement?). Complexity has to be reduced on both these dimensions for the consumer.
P7: The higher the complexity of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
Zaltman et.al. (1973) have identified some other characteristics of innovations which are relevant in the contest of Innovation Resistance. These are Reversibility, Realization, Amenability to Modification, and Effect on Adoption of Other Innovations.
Reversibility denotes the option that a consumer may have in terms of being able to discontinue adoption of the innovation (at least temporarily), if 80 desired.
P8: The lower the reversibility of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
Realization is how soon the consumer expects to receive the benefits from the innovation.
P9: The lower the realization of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
Amenability to Modification reflects the flexibility with which the innovation can be modified to ensure consumer satisfaction. In fact, this is the most important factor in reducing consumer resistance. If innovation modification is not feasible, the innovation may be rejected immediately.
P10: The lower the amenability to modification of an innovation, the higher the innovation resistance.
In some cases, the adoption of one innovation may have an inhibitory effect on the adoption of other profitable innovations. If this were the case, the consumer may opt out of the problematic innovation.
P11: The higher the inhibitory effect of an innovation on the adoption of other beneficial innovations, the higher the consumer resistance to this innovation.
Kelly & Kranzberg (1978) have classified all characteristics of innovations into two categories: those that are dependent on the consumer and those that are not. According to them. Trialability. Divisibility. Reversibility. and the Form of the innovation (idea. product. or process) would be consumer-independent. These factors can be expected to create the same type of resistance across all consumers. All other characteristics such as Relative Disadvantage. Compatibility etc. would be consumer-dependent. and would generate resistance depending on how each consumer perceived the innovation on each of these attributes.
An innovation is newness as perceived by the consumer. Thus, the resistance to an innovation is dependent on the psychological characteristics of the consumer. Some of the factors that have been identified as relevant to consumer behavior in the context of innovations are: Personality, Attitudes. Value Orientation. Previous Innovative Experience (Brandner & Kearl. 1964). Perception. Motivation (Zaltman & Wallendorf. 1983). and Beliefs (Yeracaris. 1961).
Of these factors. we have already seen how the consumer's perception of the innovation characteristics affects resistance. Unless the consumer perceives the need for the innovation. he is likely to resist it. Further. unless the consumer's perception of the innovation remains favorable both before and after adoption. he is likely to revert to resistance.
P12: The higher the consumer's perceived lack of need for the product. the higher the innovation resistance.
A second source of resistance is consumer motivation. Behaviors that are comfortable. based on "habit" (Sheth. 1981) are resistant to change. If the consumer is quite content with the current routine. and the innovation threatens to disrupt established usage patterns. then he is likely to resist the innovation. The more discontinuous the innovation. the more likely this is to happen.
P13: The more discontinuous the innovation. the lower the motivation for the consumer to adopt. and higher the innovation resistance.
The consumer's personality is a major determinant of innovation resistance. For instance. innovators or variety-seekers love innovating for the sake of the new experience and will therefore have lower resistance to new products. Personality traits such as self-confidence and dogmatism play an important role in how consumers react to innovations. For example, in the case of innovations which cannot be tested prior to purchase. consumers with lower self-confidence would rather wait until the performance of the product has been demonstrated adequately. Similarly, based on the dogmatism scale developed by Rokeach (1973). it is ewident that high dogmatics will tend to be more uncomfortable, anxious and threatened by the prospect of change and will be more resistant to innovations.
P14: The lower the consumer's self-confidence. the higher the innovation resistance.
P15: The higher the consumer's dogmatism. the higher the innovation resistance.
The consumer's attitudes and beliefs determine the amount of resistance that he offers to an innovation. For example. if a consumer desires to maintain or enhance self-prestige. and believes that the innovation will be instrumental in doing so. then his resistance to the innovation will be low. Similarly. if the consumer believes that he would need to seek information from others in order to use the innovation. and that receiving others' help is an admission of inferiority (Rice. 1963; Czepiel. 1972) then resistance to the innovation will be high.
P16: The more positive a consumer's beliefs about an innovation. the lower the innovation resistance.
P17: The more positive a consumer's attitude towards adopting an innovation. the lover the innovation resistance.
The Previous Innovative Experience of a consumer also affects innovation resistance. The biasing influence of past experience that-an individual brings to a present problem-solving or decision-making activity is known as "mind set." and mind-set plays an important role in shaping consumer perception and attitude formation.
P18: The more favorable a consumer's previous innovative experience. the lower the innovation resistance.
Thus far. we have seen the psychological characteristics of a consumer that affect innovation resistance. These characteristics reflect the consumer's Willingness to Innovate. However. a consumer with the willingness to innovate may not have the Ability to Innovate. The consumer characteristics which affect the consumer's ability to innovate are the demographic variables such as Education. Income. Mobility and Age. Consumers with a high willingness to adopt the innovation may not do so because it is well beyond their means or too sophisticated for them to comprehend.
P19: The poorer the ability of the consumers to innovate. the higher the innovation resistance.
Characteristics of Propagation Mechanisms
The role of propagation mechanisms in the adoption and diffusion of innovations has been extensively examined (Arndt. 1967; Manusco. 1969: Czepiel. 1972). While the effectiveness of propagation mechanisms in the case of successful innovations has been studied. the case of ineffective propagation mechanisms creating consumer resistance to innovations has been ignored.
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPAGATION MECHANISMS
Propagation mechanisms can be classified on two dimensions: the Extent of Marketer Control and Type of Contact with the Consumer (See Figure E). When the innovation is introduced to the market. the Marketer-Controlled propagation mechanisms such as advertising and testimonials play an important role in reducing consumer resistance.
As more and more people begin to use the product, propagation mechanisms outside Marketer Control such as word-of-mouth and Consumer Reports play an important role in reducing consumer resistance (Robertson. 1971).
P20: The earlier the innovation is in its life cycle. the greater the effectiveness of marketer-controlled propagation mechanisms (such as mass media) in reducing innovation resistance.
P21: The later the innovation is in its life cycle. the greater the effectiveness of propagation mechanisms not controlled by the marketer in reducing innovation resistance.
P22: Propagation mechanisms which involve direct and personal contact with the consumer (such as word-of-mouth and opinion leadership) are more effective than those which involve indirect contact with the consumer in reducing innovation resistance.
Regardless of the type of propagation mechanism. the characteristics of the propagation mechanism will have an impact on the consumer's innovation resistance (Robertson. 1971). First. the less clear the communication is to the consumer. the less motivated he will be to seek further information. and this may lead to higher resistance. Second. the less convincing the propagation mechanism is. the less likely the consumer will be to develop favorable predispositions to the innovation and higher the innovation resistance. Third, the less credible the propagation mechanism, or the lower the perceived expertise of the propagation mechanism, the less likely it is that the consumer will accept favorable messages about the innovation. and higher the resistance. Fourth. the less informative the propagation mechanism is about the innovation. the worse off the consumer is with respect to making a decision about the innovation. Finally. the higher the perceived similarity of the source (typically in propagation mechanisms involving direct contact with the consumer). the higher the attractiveness of the source, and the higher the receptivity to the information - hence, lower the innovation resistance.
P23: The higher the clarity of the propagation mechanism. the lower the innovation resistance.
P24: The higher the credibility (perceived expertise) of the propagation mechanism. the lower the innovation resistance .
P25: The higher the informativeness of the propagation mechanism. the lower the innovation resistance.
P26: The higher the perceived source similarity/attractiveness. the lower the innovation resistance.
Implications of the Innovation Resistance Perspective
Understanding the factors that drive innovation resistance of consumers has important implications for both theory development and managerial action.
From a theory development perspective. little empirical research has yet been reported on innovation resistance. It would be essential to see whether consumer resistance varies across product classes. or whether the same set of factors cause innovation resistance in similar product categories (such as durables. non-durables etc.). The notion of threshold resistance needs to be addressed.
Each consumer can be considered to have a minimum level of tolerance on each product attribute (the threshold). If the resistance due to any product attribute exceeds the threshold level. then the overall resistance to the product itself becomes very high. Once again. research needs to be directed at establishing threshold levels of resistance across the various product attributes in different product classes. Finally. the theory of innovation resistance can be linked with the theory of adoption to obtain an overall theory of innovations. which would explain the life of an innovation right from the time of its conception rather than after its acceptance. From 8 managerial perspective. innovation resistance is a very useful concept. First. understanding the resistance process will help marketing firms design and develop new products so as to ensure market success. The high rate of new product failure that is prevalent today can be reduced. Firms will cease innovating merely because they have access to a new technology, and will first assess the likely market resistance that the innovation will face before deciding to go ahead. Second. once firms know the underlying causes of innovation resistance, they may be able to create consumer resistance to competitive products. Third, consumer groups or activists would be quite successful in diffusing resistance among consumers to potentially harmful or hazardous innovations.
In conclusion. it is high time that consumer researchers devoted attention to a useful. yet neglected. perspective in the study of innovations. The model developed here looks at the direct effects of the three major sets of factors on innovation resistance. A more interesting aspect would be to examine the interactive effects of the factors on innovation resistance. and it is an issue that merits future study.
Barnett. H. G. (1953), Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bass. Frank M. (1969). "A New Product Growth Model For Consumer Durables." Management Science. 15(2).
Booz. Allen & Hamilton Inc. (1981). Product Management in the 1980's. Chicago Booz. Allen & Hamilton.
Brandner, Lowell and Bryant Kearl (1964). "Evaluation for Congruence as a Factor in Adoption Rate of Innovations," Rural Sociology. 29. 288-303.
Bright. J. R. (1970). "Evaluating Signals Of Technological Change, Harvard Business Review. 48. 62-70.
Brown. Lawrence A. (1981). Innovation Diffusion: A New Perspective. New York: Methuen.
Coleman. James. Elihu Katz and Herbert Menzel (1957). "The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians." SociometrY, 20 (December). 253-270.
Czepiel. John A. (1972). "The Diffusion of a Major Technological Innovation in a Complex Industrial Community: An Analysis of Social Processes in the American Steel Industry." Ph.D. Dissertation. Northwestern University.
Gatignon. Hubert and Thomas S. Robertson (1985). "A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research." Journal of Consumer Research. 11 (March). 849-867.
Homans. G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt. Brace and Hovanovich.
Kelly, Patrick and Melvin Kranzberg (1978), "Technological Innovation: A Critical Review of Current Knowledge," San Francisco: San Francisco Press Inc.
Klein. Donald (1967). "Some Notes on the Dynamics of Resistance to Change: The Defender Role." in Concepts for Social Change ed. G. Watson. Washington D.C.: National Institute for Applied Behavioral Science.
Mahajan. Vijay and Eitan Muller (1979). "Innovation Diffusion and Nev Product Growth Models in Marketing, Journal of Marketing. 43 (Fall). 55-68
Mansfield. Edwin (1961). "Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation." Econometrica. 29 (October). 741-766.
Robertson. Thomas S. (1971). Innovative Behavior and Communication. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Rogers. Everett M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rokeach. Milton (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.
Sheth. Jagdish N. (1981). "Psychology of Innovation Resistance: The Less Developed Concept (LDC) in Diffusion Research." in Research in Marketing ed. J. N. Sheth. 4. Jai Press Inc.. 273-282.
Stiles. Lindley J. and Beecham Robinson (19730. "Change in Education," in Processes and Phenomena of Social Change ed. G. Zaltman. New York: Wiley Interscience.
Yeracaris. C. A. (1961). "Social Factors Associated with the Acceptance of Medical Innovations: A Pilot Study." Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 3. 193-198.
Zaltman. Gerald. Robert Duncan and Johnny Holbek (1973). Innovations and Organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Zaltman. Gerald and Melanie Wallendorf (1983). Consumer Behavior: Basic Findings and Management Implications. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Remaining references available upon request.Following
- Mehree Iqbal added an answer:5What is your view on demographic factors of consumers and its impact on adoption of innovative products?
You can consider any one of the demographic factors and its influence/role on adoption of innovative product.
Awa, Hart O., Don Monday Baridam, and Barinedum Michael Nwibere. "Demographic determinants of electronic commerce (EC) adoption by SMEs: a twist by location factors." Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28.3 (2015): 326-345.
Baridam, Don Monday, and Barinedum Michael Nwibere. "Demographic determinants of electronic commerce (EC) adoption by SMEs." Journal of Enterprise Information Management 28.3 (2015): 326-345.Following
- Tarik Hartani asked a question:OpenCan anyone suggest any references about drip irrigation adaptation and its sociotechnichal network?
A farmer led adapatation (innovation) of drip irrigation systems is observed in agricultural areas. May be different factors contribute behind the farmers in this innovation process : engineers manufactures, small material sellers etc. Are there some examples from over the world?Following
- Richard Evans added an answer:5Any information on conference on education and innovation ranking?
I was rcently invited to submit paper for the 2016 International Conference on Education and Innovation which will take place between April. 23-24, 2016 in
Hangzhou, China. Does anyone have any idea about this conference and/or how important it's?
Unfortunately, there is no real way to check the ranking of a conference like there is for journals. For conferences, be careful. As Harry has mentioned, there are very generic conferences cropping up all over the World...normally in exotic locations and trying to make a quick buck! Try to identify conferences related specifically to your field. A conference on "education and innovation" will cover too many topics in its scope and you will not take much away from it. Instead, look for conferences sponsored by bodies in your field e.g. in manufacturing engineering, I look for conferences sponsored by IEEE or CIRP, to name a few. Hope this helps.Following
- Alexander Brem added an answer:11Which papers on innovation competence can you recommend?
Dear all, we are looking for a broad collection on innovation competence and its measures. Can you help by sending paper suggestions? best regards, DoreenFollowing
- Phil Barbonis added an answer:8Any suggestions on harming innovation by managers - managerial behavior that disturbs innovation?
Could you suggest any articles linked with topic: harming innovation by managers - managerial behavior that disturb innovation (braking resistance, counteract, sabotage)?
Given the surfeit of papers already mentioned, I will, instead, give some examples from my own experience. More than twenty years ago, I proposed the development of robotic vacuum cleaners but the Director of Engineering thought I was crazy, living in fantasy world. Jules Verne in his day was probably seen as a fantast. Today, we have robotic vacuum cleaners from many firms.
I happened to be in Singapore about a week ago, and visited a fair and saw several versions of robotic vacuum cleaners, amongst other technological innovations. The irony is that the company for which I worked is still in the vacuum cleaners business and is, unbelievably, marketing under its own brand name robotic vacuum cleaners designed and built by an Asian company! Did somebody not say that the 21st century will be the Asian Century?
An American start-up company founded by two men and a woman at MIT, was the first to bring to the market robotic vacuum cleaners. Had the company for which I had worked, taken up my idea, it would NOT be selling such robotic cleaners from Asia but it’s very own. We might, arguably, have beaten iRobots by being the first. But that was not to be, due to a lack of vision in the top layers of management.
When I was in charge of technology at a US firm, operating in Europe, I had many innovation ideas but the company was not prepared to fund the R&D work, as it was “downsizing”. I found a solution by getting Dutch Government R&D funding. I could argue seeking government funding was also being innovative. Here, I was acting as an innovation champion or gate-keeper. Innovations are more likely to be fruitful if there are innovation champions, innovation gate-keepers. Managers left to their own operating behaviours, or devices, often have a tendency for short-term views, which are not conducive to innovation. Bright engineers will be frustrated and leave. I have encouraged a few to leave for greener pastures, when I could get no support for some of my ideas or their ideas which I embraced but could find no funding. Bright ideas die because of some silly manager, who lacks the vision and the gumption to chart an innovative passage through the organizational labryinth.Following
- Shian-Loong Bernard Lew added an answer:9Should universities teach innovation and entrepreneurship? If so, how?Universities are increasingly being criticized for their failure in innovation and entrepreneurship education with their excessive focus on storytelling about entrepreneurs, business planning competitions and lean start up models. Stemming from many cases of leading entrepreneurs who were either university drop-outs or did not go to university at all, there is cynicism in the community about the effectiveness of universities in generating innovators. However, there are in fact successful approaches to developing creativity and innovation skills being used by universities such as work integrated learning (WIL). Research shows that this approach is beneficial to both students in developing their creativity and innovation skills, confidence, self-efficacy and leadership and also to businesses in contributing towards the development and commercialization of new products and services and the recruitment of talented employees who contribute to innovation within their firms. For further details on preliminary work on such approaches, see: http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_15_1_1_11.pdf
Most universities can't teach innovation or entrepreneurship. As evidenced by the many entrepreneurial, start-up founders that have dropped out from college.Not because universities don't want to, but because it is hard to define what is truly entrepreneurial at a given point in time. By definition, innovation and entrepreneurship is anti- status quo, and futuristic. The ones that do try and teach it have "entrepreneur-in-residence", where the courses are usually design over a few weeks of intense sessions rather than a full semester. Alternatively they seek to be as interdisciplinary in focus as possible. After all innovation and entrepreneurship is usually a puzzle-solving exercise requiring flexibility & adaptability.
- Uchendu E. Chigbu added an answer:6Do you know of any urban development projects that ensures service delivery to citizens and improves internally generated revenue for Government?
I want to explore innovative Urban development projects that can enhance government service delivery to citizens as well as improve internally generated revenue of Government. The key question is to identify a specific project (e.g. housing, infrastructure, etc.) and how it can provided so that it also earns revenues for government. If you know of any, let me know.
- Josef Punčochář added an answer:37Is it possible to have light without electrical power?
In general, light is produced for household purpose with bulb, CFL, tube, LED etc from electrical power. There is a big portion of world that lives in dark after sun sets. These people do not want electrical power, they want light first.
Is it possible to create a pollution free light without electric power and without burning something. Light that is sufficient to illuminate a 12 x 12 feet hut without an electricity connection. Light that is very very cheap (not more than $1 per week and 8 hours per day)….Don’t tell solar or known things….suggest something wild…some new idea….innovative…no power only light….Just for the sake of discussion….
Vasil yes, very interesting.Following
- Austin Dsouza added an answer:18The Business Model Canvas: What theory could identify/explain its advantages over other business model approaches?
The Business Model Canvas is tremendously successful. But what’s bothering me is the question of WHY?
Obviously, good marketing by Osterwalder & Pigneur is involved (workshops, blogs etc.). However, this can’t be the whole story, right? Not so many people would use the Canvas if it didn’t have any value over competing business model approaches.
I believe the success cannot arise from the choice of the nine components either. A number of authors have proposed business model components similar to those in the Canvas but did not have comparable success.
Rather, to me it seems to be about the visualization (visualization = the "grid/matrix" that visually arranges the nine components). But then the question is: How does the visualization make the Canvas good/useful? And which theories could help to shed light on this? Is it possible at all to provide a theoretical explanation?
What are your ideas concerning these questions? I am looking forward to any hint or suggestion :-)
Many thanks in advance!!!
Here is a review and comparison of several business model approaches (ontologies)
- Santosh J. Dubey added an answer:43Why are innovation and diversity used as positive performance statements?
The overiding priority of my work is to deliver effective solutions that resolve healthcare service delivery problems and to make things work better.
However, two recurring barriers to the success of that 'fixing' process is the pervasive view that innovation and diversity are 'positive performance indicators'.
Yet, fundamentally 'innovation' is about doing something new or in a new way and 'diversity' simply refers to an environment that contains several differences.
The following is an example of the common responses whilst conducting during the front end problem resolution research which I term 'establish the facts due diligence').
Investigator's question: Why were these actions / strategies were followed?
Staff / Section Team Response: These are innovative and promote diversity.
Investigator's question: Was an assessment / evaluation done to assess the likely effectiveness of said innovation and diversity actions?
Staff / Section Team Responses vary along these lines: We don't understand what you mean / We don't look at from that angle / Why / This is based on the latest research.
The sense I often glean from these types of situation is that there is a desire and a higher value placed on being seen to be innovative and a champion of diversity rather than effective.
Any and all constructive is welcome
Well, wait till you hear about us instinctive Anarchist Indians! But yeah, ideas are there to be challenged. I think its' just a matter of how we go about the process, maybe. As long as the lines are not crossed, the world's our oyster! Enjoyed speaking to you!Following
- Gara Garcia added an answer:11Is there any plant in Europe which operates the pyrolysis of sewage sludge?
I am looking for examples in Europe of plants (pilot or real scale) which operate the pyrolysis of sewage sludge, as an innovative thermal process for the treatment of it.
I am too looking for examples in Europe of pilot scale pyrolysis plants of sewage sludge. In my case, I'm looking into the pyrolysis of digestated sludge, dried at 90% DS. The temperature we are intending to apply is approx. 850oC which will produce mainly H2. The main concern at the moment is the high concentration of H2, since we want to obtain energy in a CHP. Most of the CHP manufacturers design units for biogas and therefore the feasibility of the project could be compromised since it;s anticipated that the CH4 production will be low.
Any information regarding this would be very grateful.
- Liv Kumar added an answer:18How can a multinational manufacturer use its resources and capabilities to match the opportunities that arise from the external environment?
My research is based on the business strategic analysis of an international company Procter and Gamble.
I would like to know how international manufacturers have innovated throughout the years (management, supply chain, services).
Dear @Miguel Angel Pérez Benedito,
I have used the Radar Chart of Lean Six Sigma Maturity Scores in a previous project but indeed it can be also a proactive approach to understand how the strategy of a company operates. Like a mechanism.
- Noor Saadah Zainal Abidin added an answer:9Is there anyone who has data or research articles about Distributed innovation?
Is this a new and hot topic in Management sciences and the data/articles are easily accessible/available?
Perhaps you could also refer to the following links:
- Manuel Morales added an answer:28How can a professor use Research Gate among his students to enhance a spirit of innovation, creativity, and discovery?Having returned from the United States to Colombia, I have found that my students almost always use the "we-can't-do-that" expression. I wish to expose them to innovative ways of thinking. I also wish to help them see things from various perspectives and basically I wonder if Research Gate can be a good tool to enhance discovery, creativity, and innovation.
A revised "Flawed Scientific Method" document has been uploaded to replace the previous version. This version is designed to go with the public invitation to help science self-correct. In essence, this one page document illustrates for the public the mechanics of the discovery of Einstein's nonlocal hidden variables (see link).Following
- Pacapol Jakrapan Anurit added an answer:13Measure of Disruptive Innovation Capabilities?
Has anyone used any construct to measure the disruptive innovation capabilities? Please share your experience.
Innovation is another theoretical concept that may be applied and interpreted differently. You may learn how this research measured Knowledge Management.Following
- Fawad Sadiq added an answer:4I have Managerial Cognition as one of the variables in my framework. Do you recommend using Kirton's AI Inventory to operationalise it or any other
The Managerial Cognition is an independent variable, in my research framework. Please suggest if Kirton's Adaptors Innovators Inventory (32 items) can be used to operationalize the variable? Any other valid constructs, if its not recommended?
Thank you everyone for the help. Phil, the Kirton's AI inventory was developed to measure the cognitive styles related to creativity, problem solving and decision making. You are right that KAI alone does not give the complete picture of how a person sees things and behave, therefore it has to be used with other variables that can help in assessing the same. That's why the question was posted here if someone has prior experience of using the KAI inventory in this context. You may like to refer to the article below for KAI construct. Bagozzi, R. P., & Foxall, G. R. (1995). Construct validity and generalizability of the Kirton Adaption–Innovation Inventory. European Journal of Personality, 9(3), 185–206. http://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410090303Following
- Brian Prasad added an answer:16Can anyone help me out in finding the questionnaire of administrative innovation and technical innovation?
my topic is impact of TQM practices on organizational effectiveness with the mediating role of innovation.
Preparing such a questionnaire perhaps require looking at various approaches to TQM practices.
Furthermore, TQM is not only used in managing quality in manufacturing or production settings but also has been employed in other quality settings, such as during product development.
An example of such application can be found in the paper attached. Take a look...Following
- Bakhtinur Khudanov added an answer:5What are the opportunities in Horizon 2020 for research projects on Open Innovation?Anybody interested in discussing possible collaboration?
We are very interested in collaboration in the framework of EU Horizon 2020. However no organisation has agreed to work together, yet. Do you have any idea?Following
- Samarth Gupta added an answer:5Can you share with me some articles related to information technology driven innovation?
Related to sustainable development.
Also linked to the innovation process from a knowledge management perspective?
- BK Punia added an answer:6How important is Family-CEOs Innovative Behaviour?
Does anyone know of studies or can suggest approaches to deepen our understanding of the link between family-CEOs personality and their individual innovative behaviour
There is an old saying that "Charity Begins at Home". In the context of present question it signifies that family-CEOs personality and their individual innovative behaviour leads the organization to newer heights through not only newer ideas but also through other managerial and administrative measures.Following
- Janjira Janchome added an answer:4Which is the latest innovation management model for conglomerates?A conglomerates means group of business firms, there maybe different business or there are established in the group by the policy or business objectives of the group. So these firms should have the same origin of philosophy of their group. When the conglomerates move to be an Innovative organization, what's required of their firms in the group? How does the board committee of the group drive and manage their firms to be innovative firms?
Dear J. W. Zartha,
Thank you for your useful answer.
- Valdemar Freitas Sousa added an answer:3When we observe a teacher in class in a primary school, how can we differentiate a simple moment invention to a pedagogical innovation process?And how we can discern the motivation? For example, is it a personal motivation, based in the expertise, axiology; or is a political stance?
Based on your question, I’m assuming that you’re asking for a basis of distinction between some last minute pedagogical strategy change, during a class, that looks innovative, from an action, framed on a larger, reflexive, pedagogical (and axiological — as stated by Kevin) process.
Figuring out motivations is one of the trickiest things to do — and not just in teaching. If one’s indeed observing the teacher in the classroom (doing some form of participant or non-participant observation), why not ask him after class? Ethnographic interview could be a good tool for getting that kind of information. That way, one could see into his/her intentions, pedagogy, worldview, etc. If the teacher one’s watching is a reflexive teacher, who’s framed her/his practice under an innovative paradigm, even if she/he does introduce a “simple moment invention” (as you called it) during class, it might be innovative, because it’s framed under his/her innovative worldview.
Hope it added something to your discussion.
Take care. Valdemar.Following
find out optimestic work