|
Page 1 of 4
For the process of innovation the definition proposed by the Conference Board of Canada is assessed to be suitable. It defines innovation as “a process through which economic and social value is extracted from knowledge – through the generation, development, and implementation of ideas – to produce new or improved products, processes, and services”(Skrzeszewski, 2006, p. 53). Rogers has developed the most extensive and widely cited work in this area. He developed the V stage innovation adoption model (see figure 1.8). One has to take into consideration that the model was developed based on studying innovation diffusion practices in the agricultural sector. He conceptualizes a progressive process of innovation adaptation, starting with the necessary fact that the potential user has to become aware of the innovation (stage 1); the user has then to be persuaded of the innovations usefulness (stage 2). Here a many strange attractors are at play, however Rogers seems to have a true homo economicus at mind as there are only rational qualities present. Also the price benefit component is implicit. At this point a decision about whether or not to adopt the innovation can be made (stage 3). Obviously once the decision has been made in the affirmative, implementation follows as stage 4. Once in practice the innovation needs to prove its worth as one can not assume that one will not return to the traditional working pattern (Everett M. Rogers, 1983, p. 169).
Figure 1.8 - Rogers' Model of Innovation Adaptation Behavior (Rogers, 1995, p. 170)
Perhaps the most famous result of Rogers work is the classification of the adopters of innovation into innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority and laggards (Everett M. Rogers, 1983, p. 281). The categories are categorized to divide a classical Gaussian normal distribution of the target population (see figure 1.9). The second to groups – early adopters and early majority – are found to be decisive for the general market acceptance of an innovation.
Figure 1.9 - Adopter Categorization on the Basis of Innovativeness (Rogers, 1995, p.281)
Rogers’ findings illustrate that the adopters are not one homogenous group, but rather that in one professional group – such as academics – one can expect to find the whole distribution from innovators to laggards. Nevertheless, as Zellenweger writes, it is a combination of individual disposition and the organizational context that determines the overall practices of e.g. a university (Zellweger-Moser, 2003, p. 104).
Another widely cited concept in innovation studies is the technology acceptance model (TAM). It has the perceived usefulness as well as easy operation of a given innovation as its key factors (Lee, Cho, Gay, Davidson, & Ingraffea, 2003). The TAM model is however assessed not to be very suitable to investigate and explain the rather complex internet based knowledge practice innovations like e-learning and e-research, because of its conceptualization of the decision to a simple yes or no. Rather for the innovations in question, the process of appropriation is gradual and users tend to increasingly improve their usage. This theme of classifying the innovations is elaborated by Fitchmann (1992), who categorizes a Type 1 and Type 2 technologies. Hereby Type 1 entities are characterized by a lack of user interdependencies as well as no special demands regarding knowledge or competence on part of the user. Type 2 innovations on the other hand are embedded in or cause interdependencies among stakeholders and special knowledge is needed to exploit the innovations potential. On a second axis Fitchmann addresses the theme of individual versus organizational appropriation of the new technology. Zellweger (Zellweger-Moser, 2003) is correct in assessing that classical innovation theory, like Rogers, deals first and almost exclusively with Type 1 innovations being adopted by individuals. In the case of educational technology there is almost certainly special knowledge needed and as knowledge systems deal with codification and communication there are also always interdependencies. As a consequence more complex scenarios taking organizational decision making processes, cultural characteristics, and competitive effects into consideration (Fitchmann, 1992, p. 9).
Having reviewed all the work implemented on innovation diffusion, technology acceptance, etc. it has been opted to use ‘innovation appropriation’ as conceptualization. Innovation appropriation has been selected as concept describing the act of integrating something innovative into the organization (i). The concept is based on the economic investigations about absorptive capacity as coined by Cohen & Levinthal (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). In their conceptualization absorptive capacity is the organization’s ability to recognize the value of new information or technology, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends. Hence the concept focuses on the realization of an opportunity for improved functionality and as such is in tune with the entrepreneurial perspective developed. But like ‘traditional entrepreneurship’, absorptive capacity is seen there from a pure economic perspective hence they are almost exclusively interested in econometric measures for macro- and micro-economic understanding, which is not transferable to knowledge entrepreneurship and the mission of the university. Nevertheless appropriation is chosen as it is considered more appropriate than innovation diffusion (Everett M. Rogers, 1983), which follows a particular innovation rather than the human activity. The concept of innovation integration (Darking, 2004) is assessed to describe a very similar process (ii), as it deals with the process of incorporating an innovation into the practices of an individual or organization, but it leaves out the important part of entrepreneuring and strategically planning an overall approach to innovation as well as the identification and assessment of the opportunity before the process of integration even starts.
Only three studies (Luambano & Nawe, 2004; Oyelaran-Oyeyinka & Adeya, 2004; Ynalvez et al., 2005) have been identified to deal with the process of appropriating internet based innovations into the university. All three deal with the special case of practices and impact of the internet in developing countries and their special interests and results are therefore not really transferable to the European background. One other study (Nachmias, 2002) deals with the development and provision and further development of an online learning environment at an Israeli university. Unfortunately it is pursuing very technical interests and does not bear insights for this research.
---------------------------------
(i) Either from the inside – a self-produced innovation – or from the external envirnment.
(ii) and hence the term integration is used from time to time
Users' Comments (118036) 
|
|
|
