INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
1
Innovation Diffusion Theory
Theorists: Everett Rodgers and Geoffrey Moore
Everett Rogers
Dr. Everett M Rogers was a Distinguished Professor of Communication at the University
of New Mexico. He received a doctorate from Iowa State University in 1957. During his career
he conducted innovation diffusion research internationally, published over 500 articles, and
authored over 30 books. One of his authored books is titled Diffusion of Innovation, which is
considered one of the definitive works on the topic of Innovation Diffusion (Hall, n.d.).
Geoffrey Moore
Dr. Geoffrey Moore is a leader in the area of high-tech innovation and author of several
best-selling books on the topic of innovation diffusion. His book Crossing the Chasm is
considered one of the important works on the topic of innovation diffusion related to high-tech
products. He is a consultant, venture capitalist, speaker, and leader in the field of technology.
He holds a Ph.D. in literature from the University of Washington and a bachelor’s degree in
literature from Stanford University (HarperCollins Publishers, 2002a).
Description of Theory
Overview
Rogers (2003) describes diffusion as “the process by which an innovation is
communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system” (p.
11). Through this definition he identifies four key elements of the diffusion process. These
elements are the innovation, communication channels, time, and social system. The Innovation
Diffusion Theory has been adopted and refined in many disciplines. Surry (1997) explains:
“diffusion research, in its simplest form, investigates how these major factors, and a multitude of
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
2
other factors, interact to facilitate or impede the adoption of a specific product or practice among
members of a particular adopter group” (para. 2). This general description of the Innovation
Diffusion Theory has been adopted and refined for studies in disciplines ranging from education,
engineering, business, economics, and many other fields. The Innovation Diffusion Theory
focuses on explaining and predicting how new ideas or products are spread and if those ideas or
products are adopted or rejected by a group of people.
History
Rogers (2003) explains the foundational ideas of the Innovation Diffusion Theory can be
traced to the early 1900’s from a French sociologist named Gabriel Tarde. Tarde identified the
importance of acceptance and rejection of innovations as a key element to “imitation” or what
later became known as “adoption” according to the Innovation Diffusion Theory. Tarde’s work
proposed an S-shaped curve to visualize how new ideas are adopted among a group of people
over time (Rogers, 2003).
In the 1940s and 1950s, building on the assumptions developed from the early work in
diffusion of innovation, rural sociologists began studying the spread of innovations among
farmers (Rogers, 2003). Over time, the Innovation Diffusion theory broaden to include a crossdisciplinary viewpoint of how new ideas, practices, or objects are shared among a many types of
communities.
In 1962, Everett Rogers published his seminal work titled Diffusion of Innovations. This
book, which is currently in its fifth edition, describes the core assumptions of the theory and has
been the foundation for many publications and studies on diffusion of innovations. One of these
major works which further defines the Innovation Diffusion Theory is a book by Geoffrey Moore
published in 1991 titled Crossing the Chasm. Moore builds on Rogers viewpoints by presenting
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
3
a “niche approach to gaining mainstream adoption for disruptive innovations” (HarperCollins
Publishers, 2002b, para. 2). Specifically, he focuses on high-tech innovations and identifies a
“chasm” which must be systematically transcended before widespread diffusion of innovation
can occur (Moore, 2002).
Core Assumptions
Elements of Diffusion of Innovations
Rogers (2003) proposed that diffusion of innovations can be synthesized into four key
elements. These key elements are; an innovation, communication channels, time, and the social
system.
Rogers (2003) defines an innovation as “an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as
new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (p. 12). Examples might include a technology,
teaching technique, or management approach. These are ideas or practices that are contrary to
general norms and break the pattern of common assumptions. Rogers (2003) explains that
“innovations are perceived by individuals as having greater relative advantage, capability,
trialability, and observability and less complexity will be adopted more rapidly than other
innovations” (p. 16). This statement suggests that innovations which are perceived as being
beneficial are more likely to be rapidly adopted than those that may provide benefit, but are more
difficult to understand or use.
Simplicity of innovations is an important benefit when it comes to communicating the
innovation’s ideas among communities because it may be easier to craft messages that are
readily understood. Rogers (2003) describes the method by which a message is shared between
individuals as the communication channel. The channel through which messages are sent may
be auditory or visual, or communicated through electronic, print, or a combination of various
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
4
media types. Communication challenges may be informal such as office discussions or private
conversations, or may involve mass media, disseminating ideas to a very large audience. Mass
media channels generally have the ability to transmit information most rapidly (Rogers, 2003)
which makes it a popular method for accelerating diffusion. The communication channel is
needed to share the innovation and benefit of the innovation with an audience.
The third element of diffusion of innovation is time. Time is a variable not commonly
used in behavioral science research which makes it an important strength in this theory (Rogers,
2003). Rogers further describes how time influences the innovation-decision process, how early
or late an innovation is adopted by a group, and the rate of adoption within a specific system
(number of people using the innovation).
The fourth element is the social system. Rogers (2003) defines a social system as “a set
of interrelated units that are engaged in joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal” (p.
23). The social system can be thought of as a group of people that share common interests or
goals. Social systems can be individuals, groups, organizations, or a combination of all three
social systems (Rogers, 2003).
The Innovation-Decision Process
In order for innovations to be adopted, there must be a decision process that takes place
(Rogers, 2003). This process helps an individual or decision-making entity decide if an
innovation should be accepted or rejected. The person or entity must determine if the innovation
will help them in some way. Rogers (2003) calls this five-phase process the Innovation-Decision
Process. The elements of this decision process are explained in Table 1.
The Innovation-Decision Process is an important component of the Innovation Diffusion
Theory because it encapsulates the process through which innovations are adopted. For
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
5
example, as a new technology is released to the marketplace, consumers must go through this
process to determine if the new innovation will address their specific need and if so, to what
extent. A diagram of The Innovation-Decision Process is included in Figure 1.
Adopter Categories
As individuals or groups progress through the process of accepting or rejecting
innovations, classifications of adopters are formed based on a normal distribution as seen in
Figure 2 (Rogers, 2003). The adopter categories as described by Rogers (2003) are: Innovators,
Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late Majority, and Laggards.
The adopter categories divide the social system in categories, which further describe the average
time of adoption. Table 2 organizes the adopter categories and provides Rogers’ descriptions of
each category.
The Chasm
One of the major contributions to the Diffusion of Innovations Theory was made by
Geoffrey Moore in his 1991 book Crossing the Chasm. This book is written as a high-tech
marketing model to better understand the adoption of technologies. Moore built on the notion of
categories of adopters falling in a bell curve and suggests that there is a chasm in the bell curve
that “separates the early adopters from the early majority” (Moore, 1999, p. 19). Moore’s (1993)
version that illustrates the chasm is included in Figure 3.
The Chasm is caused by a difference in the core goals of the early adopters and the early
majority (Moore, 1999). Moore (2003) describes that early adopters seek out an innovation to
achieve a strategic position in the market place. With this they accept the consequences that
accompany being the first in their field to implement an idea, process, or product. In contrast, the
early majority want to purchase an improvement to their position. They are not willing to accept
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
6
the costs that are associated with untested innovations. They are looking for examples to model
and are not willing to accept the risk associated with being an early adopter (Moore, 1999).
Moore suggests that being able to cross the chasm is a critical step for an innovation to become
widely adopted.
Measurement and Instrumentation
Based on a review of relevant literature, there are a variety of methods used to measure
diffusion of innovations among social systems. Harting, Rutten, Rutten, & Kremers (2009) used
observational and focus group methods to study diffusion of innovations among physical
therapists in the Netherlands. Olatokun & Igbinedion (2009) used a structured survey instrument
that was administered to study the diffusion of automated teller machines in Nigeria. Frenzel &
Grupp (2009) used a mixed methods approach to study diffusion models as they related to the
analysis of business processes. Hull, Kester, & Martin (1973) used a Delphi study by
commissioning papers from expert scholars and innovation implementer interviews to create a
conceptual framework for diffusion of innovations in technical education. The techniques and
approaches for measuring diffusion of innovation are broad largely to the broad implications of
the theory.
Select Relevant Research
The multi-disciplinary nature of the Innovation Diffusion Theory provides a broad base
of relevant research. Some of the most common areas of research using the Innovation Diffusion
Theory are high-tech issues, business, economics, education, and human communication. Moore
(1999) customized the theory to high-tech issues as they were occurring through the dotcom era
of the late 1990’s. Choi (2009) emphasis the importance of encouraging two-way
communication channels to facilitate this technology transfer. While many studies do address the
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
7
focus on the high-tech industry, Póvoa (2010) explored the role of patents in the process
diffusion innovations from Brazilian universities and public research institutions to Brazilian
firms. This would indicate a more formal method of diffusion, where other studies focus on the
role of the social system and shared innovation as West (2009) describes as “Communities of
Innovation” (p. 316).
Conclusion
The Innovation Diffusion Theory is well-developed, multi-disciplinary theory used to
explore how ideas or products are adopted among a social group or system. The two primary
theorists are Evert Rogers and Geoffrey Moore. The primary strength of the theory is its
flexibility in describing how innovations diffuse across a social system and are accepted or
rejected by members of that social system. The theory considers an innovation, communication
channels, time, and the social system as key elements if the diffusion process.
Report Prepared by: Bucky Dodd
References
Choi, H. J. (2009). Technology transfer issues and a new technology transfer model. Journal of
Technology Studies, 35(1), 49-57. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Frenzel, A., & Grupp, H. (2009). Using models of innovation diffusion to forecast market
success: a practitioners’ guide. Research Evaluation, 18(1), 39-50.
doi:10.3152/095820209X393172.
Fryer, W. (2008, June 9). Rogers diffusion of innovation graph [Image]. Retrieved from
http://www.flickr.com/photos/wfryer/2564440831/
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
8
Hall, B. (n.d.). Everett M. Rogers, 1931–2004 [Web log post]. Retrieved from
http://www.unm.edu/~cjdept/department/news1.html
HarperCollins Publishers (2002). Geoffrey A. Moore. Retrieved from
http://www.harpercollins.com/authors/6863/Geoffrey_A_Moore/index.aspx?authorID=6863
HarperCollins Publishers (2002). Geoffrey A. Moore on Crossing the Chasm. Retrieved from
http://www.harpercollins.com/author/authorExtra.aspx?isbn13=9780060517120&authorID=
6863&displayType=bookessay
Harting, J., Rutten, G., Rutten, S., & Kremers, S. (2009). A qualitative application of the
Diffusion of Innovations Theory to examine determinants of guideline adherence among
physical therapists. Physical Therapy, 89(3), 221-232. Retrieved from Academic Search
Complete database.
Moore, G.A. (1999). Crossing the Chasm. (Rev. ed.). New York, NY: HarperBusiness
Olatokun, W., & Igbinedion, L. (2009). The adoption of automatic teller machines in Nigeria: An
application of the theory of Diffusion of Innovation. Issues in Informing Science &
Information Technology, 6373-393. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (Fifth Edition) New York, NY: Free Press
Surry, D.W. (1997). Diffusion Theory and instructional technology. Instructional Technology
Research Online. Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/
Watson, P. (2006, July 3). Crossing the chasm. [Image]. Retrieved from
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulwatson/180917110/
West, R. (2009). What is shared? A framework for understanding shared innovation within
communities. Educational Technology Research & Development, 57(3), 315-332.
doi:10.1007/s11423-008-9107-4.
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
9
Table 1
Elements of the Decision Process
Stage
1. Knowledge
2. Persuasion
3. Decision
4. Implementation
5. Confirmation
Description
“Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) is exposed to an
innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions”
“Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) forms a favorable or
an unfavorable attitude towards the innovation”
“Takes place when an individual (or other decision-making unit) engages in
activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation”
“Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) puts a new idea into
use”
“Takes place when an individual seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision
already made, but he or she may reverse this previous decision if exposed to
conflicting messages about the innovation”
(Rogers, 2003, p.169)
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
Figure 1
The Innovation-Decision Process
(Rogers, 2003, p. 170)
10
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
Figure 2
Classifications of Adopters
(Rogers, 2003, p. 281) adapted from Fryer (2008).
11
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
Figure 3
The Chasm
(Moore, 1999, p. 17) adapted from Watson (2006).
12
INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY
13
Table 2
Adopter Categories
Stage
Innovators
Percent of
Social System
2.5
Generalizations
of Category
Venturesome
Description


Early
Adopters
13.5
Respect


Early Majority
34
Deliberate


Late Majority
34
Skeptical


Laggards
16
Traditional


(Rogers, 2003)
“Their interest in new ideas leads them
out of a local circle of peer networks and
into more cosmopolite social
relationships” (p. 282).
“The innovator plays a gatekeeping role in
the flow of new ideas into a system.” (p.
283).
“has the highest degree of opinion
leadership in most systems” (p. 283).
“Early adopters help trigger the critical
mass when they adopt an innovation” (p.
283).
“adopt new ideas just before the average
member of a system” (p. 283).
“may deliberate for some time before
completely adopting a new idea..” (p.
284).
“adopt new ideas just after the average
member of a system” (p. 284).
“The pressure of peers is necessary to
motivate adoption” (p. 284).
“last in a social system to adopt an
innovation” (p. 284).
“Decisions are often made in terms of
what has been done previously, and these
individuals interact primarily with others
who also have relatively traditional
values” (pg. 284).