The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps

Innovation researchers have known for sometime that a new information technology maybe widely acquired, but then only sparsely deployed among acquiring firms. When this happens, the observed pattern of cumulative adoptions will vary depending on which eventin the assimilation process (i.e., acquisition or deployment) is treated as the adoption event. Instead of mirroring one another, a widening gap-termed here an assimilation gap-will existbetween the cumulative adoption curves associated with the alternatively conceived adoption events. When a pronounced assimilation gap exists, the common practice of using cumulative purchases or acquisitions as the basis for diffusion modeling can present an illusory picture of the diffusion process-leading to potentially erroneous judgments about the robustness ofthe diffusion process already observed, and of the technology's future prospects. Researchers may draw inappropriate theoretical inferences about the forces driving diffusion. Practitioners may commit to a technology based on a belief that pervasive adoption is inevitable, when it is not. This study introduces the assimilation gap concept, and develops a general operational measure derived from the difference between the cumulative acquisition and deployment patterns. It describes how two characteristics-increasing returns to adoption and knowledge barriers impeding adoption-separately and in combination may serve to predispose a technology to exhibit a pronounced gap. It develops techniques for measuring assimilation gaps, for establishing whether two gaps are significantly different from each other, and for establishing whether a particular gap is absolutely large enough to be of substantive interest. Finally, it demonstrates these techniques in an analysis of adoption data for three prominent innovations in software process technology-relational database management systems (RDBs), general purpose fourth generation languages (4GLs), and computer aided software engineering tools (CASE). The analysis confirmed that assimilation gaps can be sensibly measured, and that their measured size is largely consistent with a priori expectations and recent research results. A very pronounced gap was found for CASE, while more moderate-though still significant-gaps were found for RDBs and 4GLs. These results have the immediate implication that, where the possibility of a substantial assimilation gap exists, the time of deployment should be captured instead of, or in addition to, time of acquisition as the basis for diffusion modeling. More generally, the results suggest that observers be guarded about concluding, based on sales data, that an innovation is destined to become widely used. In addition, by providing the ability to analyze and compare assimilation gaps, this study provides an analytic foundation for future research on why assimilation gaps occur, and what might be done to reduce them.

[1]  Brian Rowan Organizational Structure and the Institutional Environment: The Case of Public Schools. , 1982 .

[2]  Paul Ati ' Ewell TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING: THE CASE OF BUSINESS COMPUTING* , 1992 .

[3]  James A. Senn,et al.  The other side of case implementation: best practices for success , 1995 .

[4]  E. Mansfield The Diffusion of Flexible Manufacturing Systems in Japan, Europe and the United States , 1993 .

[5]  Robert G. Cowen,et al.  Fulfilling the Promises , 1984 .

[6]  James C. Wetherbe,et al.  The Adoption of Spreadsheet Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-User Computing , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[7]  Dorothy Leon Ard-Barton Implementation Characteristics of Organizational Innovations , 1988 .

[8]  Steve Sawyer,et al.  The Effective Use of Automated Application Development Tools , 1997, IBM Syst. J..

[9]  J. March,et al.  Information in Organizations as Signal and Symbol. , 1981 .

[10]  A. Meyer,et al.  Organizational Assimilation of Innovations: A Multi-Level Contextual Analysis , 1988 .

[11]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  Diffusion in computing networks: the case of BITNET , 1990, Commun. ACM.

[12]  E. B. Swanson,et al.  Information systems innovation among organizations , 1994 .

[13]  von HippelEric "Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving , 1994 .

[14]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities , 1986, Journal of Political Economy.

[15]  M. Fleischer,et al.  processes of technological innovation , 1990 .

[16]  M. Lynne Markus,et al.  Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media , 1987 .

[17]  Arun Rai,et al.  Promise and problems: CASE usage in the US , 1993, J. Inf. Technol..

[18]  AttewellPaul Technology Diffusion and Organizational Learning , 1992 .

[19]  Arun Rai,et al.  External information source and channel effectiveness and the diffusion of CASE innovations: an empirical study , 1995 .

[20]  Andrew H. Van de Ven,et al.  A community perspective on the emergence of innovations , 1993 .

[21]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[22]  Nathan Rosenberg,et al.  Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics , 1984 .

[23]  Neil C. Ramiller,et al.  Perceived compatibility of information technology innovations among secondary adopters: Toward a reassessment , 1994 .

[24]  D. Dillman,et al.  Mail and telephone surveys , 1978 .

[25]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[26]  B. Kogut,et al.  Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology , 1992 .

[27]  Melissa A. Schilling Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure , 1998 .

[28]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development , 1993, MIS Q..

[29]  John A. Stone Inside ADW and IEF: the promise and reality of CASE , 1993 .

[30]  Robert A. Peterson,et al.  Models for innovation diffusion , 1985 .

[31]  Paul Attewell,et al.  Computing and organizations: what we know and what we don't know , 1984, CACM.

[32]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Now the learning curve affects CASE tool adoption , 1992, IEEE Software.

[33]  W ZmudRobert,et al.  Information Technology Implementation Research , 1990 .

[34]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Toward a Theory of the Adoption and Diffusion of Software Process Innovations , 1993, Diffusion, Transfer and Implementation of Information Technology.

[35]  Sue A. Conger,et al.  INNOVATIONS : A CLASSIFICATION BY IT LOCUS OF IMPACT AND RESEARCH APPROACH , 2002 .

[36]  Terry Judith Parkins THE CASE AGAINST CASES , 1961 .

[37]  Vijay Gurbaxani,et al.  An Integrative Model of Information Systems Spending Growth , 1990, Inf. Syst. Res..

[38]  Sandeep Kapur,et al.  On Technological Expectations , 1992 .

[39]  J. Singer,et al.  QUANTITATIVE METHODS IN PSYCHOLOGY Modeling the Days of Our Lives: Using Survival Analysis When Designing and Analyzing Longitudinal Studies of Duration and the Timing of Events , 1991 .

[40]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing returns and the new world of business. , 1996, Harvard business review.

[41]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation and diffusion of software process innovations , 1995 .

[42]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  New Product Diffusion Models in Marketing: A Review and Directions for Research: , 1990 .

[43]  T. H. Kwon,et al.  Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation , 1987 .

[44]  Rita Gunther McGrath A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments , 1997 .

[45]  Mary B. Presscott Diffusion of innovation theory: borrowings, extensions, and modifications from IT researchers , 1995, DATB.

[46]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  Object Technology and Reuse: Lessons from Early Adopters , 1997, Computer.

[47]  E. Hippel Sticky Information and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation , 1994 .

[48]  Robert G. Fichman,et al.  International Conference on Information Systems ( ICIS ) 1992 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION : A REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL RESEARCH , 2017 .

[49]  Chris F. Kemerer,et al.  The assimilation of software process innovations: an organizational learning perspective , 1997 .

[50]  J. Pennings,et al.  Technological Networking and Innovation Implementation , 1992 .

[51]  F. Bass A new product growth model for consumer durables , 1976 .

[52]  R. Zmud,et al.  Information technology implementation research: a technological diffusion approach , 1990 .