7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
Beyond Adoption,
What Do We Mean by “Innovation Adoption” in Business-to-Business Marketing?
Hannu Makkonen
Turku School of Economics
Rehtorinpellonkatu 3
20500 Turku, Finland
p. +358 503724187
ABSRACT
After an extensive review we strongly argue that the literature on innovation adoption in organizational setting can be described fragmented and contradictory. The current body of
knowledge is much less than the sum of its parts. In order to yield cumulative knowledge of
innovation adoption in business-to-business context integrative work is needed. The purpose
of this study is to scrutinize the concept of innovation adoption in organizational setting by
reviewing previous research. Conducting this we aim to recognize different meanings of innovation adoption that is essential to structure the research and to build on these earlier
achievements in the future.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
1
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
INTRODUCTION
The increased turbulence, complexity and competitiveness of organizational environments
have made the identification, evaluation and adoption of innovations critical determinants of
organizational productivity, competition and survival. Due to their key role in modern society
innovations have been studied within various disciplines. In spite of increasing interest in
innovations and growing number of studies in the field the prior research has not yielded a
generally accepted definition for innovation, but rather definitions are miscellaneous
(Damanpour & Scneider, 2006, 216). Without a good definition we still lack good measures
of innovation which hinder knowledge accumulation on the field. (Johannessen, Olsen &
Lumpkin, 2001, 20.) Despite the variety certain similarities do exist in presented definitions.
On a more abstract level newness and utility are common to most definitions of innovation.
In this paper we define innovation as Cumming (1998, 22) puts it as “the first successful application of a product or process” for a potential adopter. A perception of newness matters,
not the absolute newness of a product. (Damanpour & Evans, 1984; Lyytinen & Rose, 2003,
559.)
Adoption and diffusion of innovations has been studied within various disciplines for
example economics (e.g. Mansfield 1961; Stoneman & Ireland, 1983), sociology (e.g. Rogers, 1962), geography (e.g. Brown, 1981), medical sociology (e.g. Coleman, Katz & Menzel
1957), cultural anthropology (e.g. Barnett 1953) and marketing (Bass, 1969; Gatignon &
Robertson, 1985; Gatignon & Robertson 1989; Robertson & Gatignon, 1986). According to
Grønhaug and Kauffmann (1988, 4) “researchers preoccupied with innovation are partly unaware of the research done and conceptualizations used by colleagues from other disciplines”. Integrative research attempts have been made (e.g. Rogers, 1962; Wejnert, 2002) in
order to integrate diverse concepts, variables and processes, but surprisingly a concrete attempt to find a solution for the core issue, namely what do we mean by innovation adoption,
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
2
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
is still missing. Basing on our review of the field of innovation adoption we strongly agree
with Downs and Mohr (1976, 700) who state that “the most alarming characteristic of the
body of empirical study of innovation is the extreme variance among its findings.” Already a
brief literature review would illustrate the range of definitions and divergent conceptualizations of innovation adoption. The research attempts have focused on to scrutinize and integrate independent variables that affect adoption but adoption itself as dependent variable has
not gained any particular attention. The problem of common definition of innovation adoption implicates conceptual and methodological problems in the research of innovation. There
is no point to attempt to integrate factors that influence on adoption if the definition of adoption varies from study to study. The purpose of this paper is to examine the innovation adoption literature and contribute this area by explicitly discussing the concept of innovation
adoption from the perspective of business-to-business marketing. By doing this we aim to
bring terminological clarity to research on innovation adoption in organizational setting in
order to facilitate more convergent research in the future. As a result of our study we put
adoption research into choice and process research and present categorization of the concepts
related to innovation adoption.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN ADOPTION CHOICE AND ADOPTION PROCESS
Ozanne and Churchill (1971, 322) state that “the industrial adoption process is nothing more
than a decision process leading to the purchase of an industrial innovation.” Similarly Woodside and Biemans (2005, 384–385) define adoption as “the decision-making process of an
individual unit of adoption…” Becker and Whisler (1967, 466) reviewed literature on organizational processes of innovative behavior and reported “a substantial degree of agreement” as
the literature visualized the process of four stages: stimulus, conception, proposal and adoption (or rejection). In the first edition of seminal book Diffusion of Innovations (1962) Rogers
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
3
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
conceptualized the adoption process as awareness, interest, evaluation, trial and adoption.
Basing on these statements we could state that innovation adoption equals decision process to
acquire innovation. In the same book Rogers’ (1962, 17) define adoption as “a decision to
continue full-scale use of an innovation”. According Klein and Sorra (1996, 1055) adoption
is “a decision, typically made by senior organizational managers, that employees within the
organization will use the innovation in their work.” As well Klein, Conn and Sorra (2001,
811) define adoption as “an organization’s decision to install an innovation within the organization... adoption is a decision point, a plan, or a purchase.” In this respect the definition of
adoption is at least two-fold. Adoption can be seen both decision-making process from it’s
outset until the decision as well as this final decision choice as an outcome of this process
(for a classification of levels of decisions see Kriger & Barnes, 1992, 446–450). Both conceptualizations, choice and process, can be found to describe the literature.
The distinction between choice and process conceptualizations of adoption is supported
explicitly by the work done by Choffray and Lilien (1980) as they distinguish research on
new-product purchasing in industrial markets into adoption research (choice) and behavior
research (process). Also Mohr (1982) presents a categorization of variance (comparable to
choice here) and process approaches into organizational phenomena and demonstrates this by
taking examples from innovation adoption and diffusion literature. Traditionally innovation
adoption has been studied within diffusion research. In this context it is understood as choice.
This perspective has dominated the field as research has been typically carried out with a
large sample of organizations and focusing on correlations between groups of factors and a
specific outcome of the adoption process. The research has yielded organizational, environmental and managerial factors that separate adopters from non-adopters or different variables
such as sources of information used (see e.g. Rogers, 1983) or a role of a CEO (Meyer &
Goes, 1988) as predictors of adoption. These models are incapable to explain how these fac-
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
4
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
tors evolve and interact with other factors during the process finally producing adoption or
rejection (see Langley & Truax, 1994, 620). As process, innovation adoption is not seen only
a means producing innovation adoption or rejection that is interesting only as a part of an
aggregate level cumulative pattern. Rather the process of adoption is considered meaningful
itself. As Damanpour and Schneider (2006, 215) present that even though the process of
adoption has been conceptualized as a multiphase process most large sample empirical studies of organizational innovation have operationalized adoption as a dichotomous decision of
adoption or rejection (see also Frambach & Schillewaert, 2002, 164). Need for process perspective has been manifested for example by Frambach and Schillewaert (2002, 172) who
argue basing on their review of earlier studies that further research should concentrate on “the
factors influencing different pre-adoption stages within the adoption process, rather than the
adoption or non-adoption decision itself.” (see also Drury and Farhoomand, 1999; Pennings,
1987, 6–7.)
Mohr (1982, 37) took the innovation adoption and diffusion research as an example of a
field of research that mix up process theory and variance theory (choice here). We state that
the situation has not improved from 1982 as most of the researchers do not recognize that
innovation adoption as choice and innovation adoption as process are different fields of research. Figure 1 illustrates the current adoption research. Dashed line between these two research streams and arrows crossing the line illustrates that current research on innovation
adoption mix up the terminology and results from these separate fields. Most alarming is that
we tend to believe that this is mostly done unconsciously as clear distinction between choice
and process approach is not widely recognized in the previous literature on innovation adoption.
Even though the concept of innovation adoption is shared the underlying ideas are
greatly different as adoption is considered as behavior or as diffusion. Mohr (1982, 37) states
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
5
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
that attempts to mix between process and variance theory will lead to “significant impediment”. He (1982, 69) continues that “lending back and forth between variance theory and
process theory leads to a situation in which neither is as well served as it truly deserves, although further work along either track by itself, more purely conceived, might well pay handsome dividends.” The research results from these two different fields are like “intermingled
pieces of two different jigsaw puzzles. When one realizes that one is dealing with a mixed
collection, the two types of bits must first be sorted out; then assembly can go forward in earnest.” (Mohr, 1982, 70.) This means that application of results found within studies having a
choice as a unit of analysis to process studies and vice versa should done carefully. By stating
this we mean that for example the influence of different factors that have been found in studies considering innovation adoption as choice and generating results through quantitative
surveys might be only weak reflection of some other elements more critical during a process
making us to believe them being meaningful by themselves. Without recognition of a clear
boundary between these separate fields the research labeled under innovation adoption will
continue to be inharmonious and dissonant.
As embodiment of this blurred boundary between process and choice adoption we may
consider the widely recognized meta-analysis of relation between innovation characteristics
and innovation adoption-implementation by Tornatzky and Klein (1982). In their analysis
they have included both studies that consider adoption as yes/no decision (70 studies) and
studies that take into account adoption decision and post adoption phases (5 studies). The
results of the meta-analysis were not presented according this coding but were mixed up together. The study did neither make distinction between individual adopters or organizational
adopters and between different types of innovations, but was rather a general insight on characteristics of innovation and their influence on adoption-implementation.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
6
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
CONCEPTS RELATED TO ADOPTION AS PROCESS
As we scrutinize adoption as process, we notice that there is disagreement in literature which
phases to include to innovation adoption. On the third edition (1983, as well in the fourth
1995) Rogers revised the original model consisting phases of awareness, interest, evaluation,
trial and adoption as the revised model constitutes of knowledge, persuasion, decision (adoption), implementation and confirmation. In this latter version adoption includes also phases
that follow the adoption decision and in this respect is more comprehensively conceptualized.
Divergence characterizes the process of adoption in the literature as adoption has been put
into a variety of phases. Hage and Aiken (1970): evaluation, initiation, implementation and
routinization. Zaltman, Duncan and Holbek (1973): knowledge awareness, attitudes formation, (adoption) decision, initial implementation and sustained implementation. Rogers
(1995) and Zmud (1982): initiation, adoption and post-adoption. Most of the definitions agree
with a classification of pre-adoption and adoption but in addition some definitions extend the
adoption to cover post adoption activities as well (see Damanpour & Schneider, 2006, 217).
The models that recognize post adoption describe organizational adoption as a twostage process. Firstly innovation is adopted on an organizational level, primary adoption, and
then on an employee level, secondary adoption (see Zaltman et al., 1973). Leonard-Barton
and Deschamps (1988, 1253) call these phases similarly as authority decision and end-users’
adoption decision. Klein and Sorra (1996, 1055) define implementation as “the process of
gaining targeted employees’ appropriate and committed use of an innovation.” Intra-firm
diffusion and individual level acceptance posses the same meaning as implementation and
generally they refer to actions and process that are taken in order to take the adopted innovation in full use among employees at the adopter company. (cf. Kim & Srivastava, 1998, 231).
The idea is that for some type of innovations an organizational adoption process is followed
by implementation and employee level adoptions within an adopter company. Interesting is
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
7
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
that in the literature implementation, as far as we noticed, hardly ever referred to installation
of a capital investment innovation but always to employee level adoption. This tells that the
type of the innovations studied under label “innovation adoption” in organizational setting
represent a type of innovation (software, computers etc.) that is targeted to be used by single
employees in their personal work even though there is no reason to exclude innovations that
are installed in one place in organization as capital investments like production machinery.
The process of adoption, seen as pre adoption, adoption and post adoption, is comparable to assimilation. Meyer and Goes (1988, 897) define assimilation as “an organizational
process that (1) is set in motion when individual organization members first hear of an innovation’s development, (2) can lead to the acquisition of the innovation, and (3) sometimes
comes to fruition in the innovation’s full acceptance, utilization, and institutionalization.” The
process of assimilation is divided further into three sub-processes (a knowledge-awareness
stage, an evaluation-choice stage and an adoption-implementation stage) each consisting of
three episodes. This term covers widely an adoption decision process, its outcome as innovation adoption choice and a phase of intra-organizational diffusion after that. Woodside and
Biemans (2005, 387) have described comprehensiveness of assimilation using terms breadth
(cumulative number of users) of use and depth of use (extent of use and its impact on the
firm).
FINDINGS, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
The main idea beyond innovation adoption, whether seen as choice or process, is change and
its acceptance. Damanpour and Schneider (2006, 217) put it as “innovation adoption is a
means of creating change in the organization to ensure adaptive behavior and is intended to
change the organization so that it maintains or improves its level of performance and effectiveness.” The adoption models that ignore post adoption phase illustrate the organizational
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
8
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
level adoption process and the models including post adoption go further and take into account the employee level adoptions within the adopter organization as well. But in both models the adoption refers to the acceptance of change and the episodes before this acceptance.
Episodes and processes that follow the adoption process are seen as concrete conduct of this
accepted change. In this respect we can state that organizational adoption has occurred as the
decision to start to implement the innovation has been made. The individual level diffusion
within the organization, even though it is more active than passive activity, is the consequence of this adoption from the organizations point of view. Individual level diffusion consists of single adoption decisions but is different, even though closely related phenomenon to
organizational adoption. Becker and Whisler (1967, 466) state that most innovation theorists
terminate the analysis at the stage of adoption even though thereafter performed activities are
those realizing the change in an organization. We can study separately both organizational
innovation adoption and employee level adoption but if we study the phenomenon consisting
of these both then we study innovation assimilation rather than adoption. The terminology
discussed throughout this paper related to innovation adoption is drawn up in Figure 2. We
state that organizational innovation adoption (line AB in Figure 2) is synonym to primary
adoption, pre adoption, and authority decision process. Similarly individual adoption (line
BC) equals secondary adoption, post adoption, implementation and intra-firm diffusion. Organizational adoption choice or organizational acceptance decision (B) ends organizational
adoption process. Similarly individual adoption choice or individual acceptance decision (C)
closes off the individual adoption period. Term assimilation refers this activity as a whole
consisting of both organizational and individual adoption processes.
On both organizational and individual level, innovation adoption is mostly an information processing activity (Rogers, 1983). Diffusion literature assumes rational decision
making. The idea which underlies this approach is that the adopter as rational decision-maker
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
9
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
recognizes the potential gains and replaces the old product by the new innovation. Then it is
just a matter of time when the new innovation has spread out the markets. According to stimulus-reaction philosophy of innovation diffusion tradition, the adoption process is a reaction
to a new innovation. The adopter recognizes the underlying need for the innovation exposed
as it becomes aware of it. In this sense the awareness of innovation reveals the need for it as
the potential benefits of innovation exceed the benefits the old product provides.
As process, innovation adoption is seen differently as the organizational behavior is in
focus instead of the final adoption choice. The rational decision-making approach has been
challenged and alternative views have been proposed to see adoption. Most comprehensive
presentation in this area, as far as we know, is the one proposed by Langley and Truax (1994)
who put innovation adoption models to sequential models, political models and serendipitous
models. Sequential models describe adoption as linear process consisting of different phases.
Instead of rational and sequential process serendipitous models consider adoption as an outcome of a wide variety of organizational routines. Under some conditions interplay between
the organization and the environment produce innovation adoption. Political models consider
adoption as a political process where adoption decisions are fostered by technology advocates
who have an influence on managerial level decision-makers. These models emphasize social
interaction during the process and present different roles for the participants making the organizational adoption decision. As process, innovation adoption is similar to organizational
buying behavior. This has been already suggested by some researchers (see e.g. Woodside &
Biemans, 2005) and studies have mixed terminology of both these fields (e.g. Woodside,
1994) but a concrete attempt, as far as we know, to consider this overlapping has been taken
only by Wilson (1987). This was done in very brief form and with no remarkable impact. His
main point was that adoption should be seen as a new task buying situation (see Robinson,
Faris & Wind, 1967).
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
10
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
We propose our study as conceptual inventory of innovation adoption facilitating the
evolvement of the more convergent research on the field. However further research attempts
are still needed to structure the current body of knowledge. We think that the process view of
adoption is the most fruitful area for further empirical research and researchers should draw
conceptualizations from other areas, organizational (buying) behavior, decision-making theories, to further understanding of the process of organizational adoption process.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
11
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
FIGURES
Conceptualization
of Adoption
Underlying Philosophy of
Adoption
Adoption
(Rejection)
as Choice
Innovation
Adoption as
Diffusion
Adoption
as
Process
Innovation
Adoption as
Behavior
Innovation
Adoption
Figure 1: Innovation adoption research as choice and process
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
12
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
Adoption Choice =
Individual Acceptance Decision
(Rejection)
Adoption Choice =
Organizational Acceptance Decision
(Rejection)
C1
C2
A
B
Cx
C…
Organizational Adoption Process
Primary Adoption
Pre Adoption
Authority Decision Process
Cn
Individual Adoption Process
Secondary Adoption
Post Adoption
Implementation
Intra-firm Diffusion
Assimilation
Figure 2: Organizational innovation adoption related concepts
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
13
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
REFERENCES
Angle, H. L., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2000) Suggestions for managing the innovation journey.
In A. H. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Research on the Management
of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 167–188
Barnett, H. G. (1953) Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bass, F. (1969) A new product growth model for consumer durables. Management Science,
15(5), 215–227.
Becker, S. W., & Whisler, T. L. (1967) The Innovative Organization: A Selective View of
Current Theory and Research. The Journal of Business, 40(4), 462–469.
Brown, L. A. (1981) Innovation Diffusion. London: Methuen & Co.
Choffray, J-M., & Lilien, G. L. (1980) Market Planning for New Industrial Products. New
York: John Wiley.
Coleman, J, Katz, E., & Menzel, H. (1957) The diffusion of an innovation among physicians.
Sociometry, 20(4), 253–270.
Cumming, B. S. (1998) Innovation overview and future challenges. European Journal of Innovation Management, 1(1), 21–29.
Drury, D. H., & Farhoomand, A. (1999) Innovation Diffusion and Implementation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), 133–157.
Damanpour, F., & Evan, W. M. (1984) Organizational Innovation and Performance: The
Problem of “Organizational Lag”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(3), 392–409.
Damanpour, F., & Gopalakrishnan, S. (1998) Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 15(1), 1–24.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
14
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
Damanpour, F., & Scneider, M. (2006) Phases of the Adoption of Innovation in Organizations: Effects of Environment, Organization and Top Managers. British Journal of Management, 17(3), 215–236.
Downs, G. W., Jr., & Mohr, L. B. (1976) Conceptual issues in the study of innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(4), 700–714.
Frambach R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002) Organizational innovation adoption: A multi and
level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 163–176.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1985) A Propositional Inventory for New Diffusion Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 849–867.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1989) Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive effects. Journal of Marketing, 53(1), 35–49.
Grønhaug, K., & Kauffmann, G. (1988) Innovation: A Cross-disciplinary Perspective. Oslo:
Norwegian University Press.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. (1970) Social Change in Complex Organizations. New York: Random
House.
Johannessen, J–A., Olsen, B., & Lumpkin, G. T. (2001) Innovation as newness: what is new,
how new and new to whom? European Journal of Innovation Management, 4(1), 20–31.
Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998) Managing intraorganizational diffusion of technological
innovations. Industrial Marketing Management, 27(3), 229-246.
Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001) Implementing Computerized Technology: An
Organizational Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 811–824.
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996) The Challenge of Innovation Implementation. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1055–1080.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
15
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
Kriger, M. P., & Barnes, L. B. (1992) Organizational decision-making as hierarchical levels
of drama. Journal of Management Studies, 29(4), 439–457.
Langley, A., & Truax, J. (1994) A Process Study of New Technology Adoption in Smaller
Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Management Studies, 31(5), 619–652.
Leonard-Barton, D., & Deschamps, I. (1988) Managerial Influence in the Implementation of
New Technology. Management Science, 34(10), 1252–1265.
Lyytinen, K., & Rose, G. M. (2003) The Disruptive Nature of Information Technology Innovations: The Case of Internet Computing in Systems Development Organizations. MIS
Quarterly, 27(4), 557–595.
Mansfield, E. (1961) Technical Change and the Rate of Imitation. Econometrica, 29(4), 741–
766.
Meyer, A. D., & Goes, J. B. (1988) Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A Multilevel
Contextual Analysis. The Academy of Management Journal. 31(4), 897–923.
Mohr, L. B. (1982) Explaining Organizational Behavior, The Limits and possibilities of Theory and Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Ozanne, U. B., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1971) Five Dimensions of the Industrial Adoption
Process. Journal of Marketing Research, 8(3), 322–328.Pennings, J. M. (1987) Technological innovation in manufacturing. In J. M. Pennings, & A. Buitendam (Eds.), New
Technology as Organizational Innovation (pp. 197–216). Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger.
Robertson, T., & Gatignon, H. (1986) Competitive Effects on Technology Diffusion. Journal
of Marketing, 50(1), 1–12.
Robinson, P., Faris, C., & Wind, Y. (1967) Industrial Buying and Creative Marketing, Boston: Allyn & Bacon
Rogers, E. M. (1962) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983) Diffusion of Innovations. (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
16
7th Global Conference on Business & Economics
ISBN : 978-0-9742114-9-7
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations. (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Stoneman, P., & Ireland, N. (1983) The Role of Supply Factors in the Diffusion of New Process Technology. Economic Journal, Vol. 93. (Supplement: Conference Papers), 66-78
Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. J. (1982) Innovation characteristics and innovation adoptionimplementation: a meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, EM-29(1), 28–45.
Wejnert, B. (2002) Integrating Models of Diffusion of Innovations: A Conceptual Framework. The Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 297–326.
Wilson, D. T. (1987) Merging Adoption Process and Organizational buying models. Advances in Consumer Research, 14(1), 323–325.
Woodside, A. (1994) Network Anatomy of Industrial Marketing and Purchasing of New
Manufacturing Technologies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 9(3), 52–63.
Woodside, A. G., & Biemans, W. G. (2005) Modeling innovation, manufacturing, diffusion
and adoption/rejection processes. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(7),
380–393.
Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973) Innovations and organizations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Zmud, R. W. (1982) Diffusion of Modern Software Practices: Influence of Centralization and
Formalization. Management Science, 28(12), 1421–1431.
October 13-14, 2007
Rome, Italy
17