See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/242344060

Consumer Adoption of Technological Innovations

Article  in  European Journal of Innovation Management · June 2003

DOI: 10.1108/14601060310475246

CITATIONS READS

98 6,464

1 author:

Maria Saaksjarvi
BI Norwegian Business School
48 PUBLICATIONS   938 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

design for subjective wellbeing View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Saaksjarvi on 04 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 European Journal of Innovation Management
Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
Article information:
To cite this document:
Maria Saaksjarvi, (2003),"Consumer adoption of technological innovations", European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 6 Iss 2 pp. 90 - 100
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060310475246
Downloaded on: 01 April 2015, At: 05:01 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 62 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 4686 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)

Caroline Mothe, Thuc Uyen Nguyen Thi, (2010),"The link between non-technological innovations and
technological innovation", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 13 Iss 3 pp. 313-332 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601061011060148
Michael Antioco, Mirella Kleijnen, (2010),"Consumer adoption of technological innovations: Effects of psychological and
functional barriers in a lack of content versus a presence of content situation", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Iss
11/12 pp. 1700-1724 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561011079846
Tanawat Hirunyawipada, Audhesh K. Paswan, (2006),"Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: implications
for high technology product adoption", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23 Iss 4 pp. 182-198 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363760610674310

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 474727 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


Consumer adoption of
technological
innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
The author
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
Maria Saaksjarvi is PhD Candidate and Consultant at
the Swedish School of Economics and Business
Administration, Helsinki, Finland.
Keywords
Technological innovation, Consumer attitudes
Abstract
This paper introduces a conceptual model of consumer
innovation adoption based on knowledge and
compatibility. More specifically, innovation adoption is
proposed to be determined by four adopter groups:
technovators, supplemental experts, novices, and core
experts, and the interaction between their knowledge and
compatibility with the technological innovation.
Compatibility occurs when a potential adopter perceives
the innovation as being consistent with his/her existing
values, past experiences, and needs. The model presented
is intended to help researchers and practitioners
successfully identify potential adopters of a technological
innovation.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/1460-1060.htm
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . pp. 90-100
# MCB UP Limited . ISSN 1460-1060
DOI 10.1108/14601060310475246
90
Introduction
Technological innovations such as cellular
phones, PDAs, interactive home shopping,
and digital TV, have re-cultivated researcher
interest towards the field of consumer
innovation adoption (Danaher et al., 2001;
Roehm and Sternthal, 2001; Alba et al., 1997;
Eastlick, 1996). Consumer adoption is
identified as a process (Rogers, 1976),
traditionally conceptualized as a sequence of
steps in which the consumer passes from
initial knowledge of an innovation, to forming
an attitude towards it, to reaching an
adoption decision (Rogers, 1962). Innovation
literature has largely relied on Rogers' (1962)
classification of adopter segments
(innovators, early adopters, early majority,
late majority, laggards) for identifying
consumers' adoption propensity. This view
has been challenged due to measurement
problems of innovativeness (Goldsmith and
Hofacker, 1991; Hirschman, 1980; Midgley
and Dowling, 1978) and personal
characteristic differences regarding the
technology market (Dickerson and Gentry,
1983). Recently, Moreau et al. (2001)
proposed a new approach for segmenting
adopter categories based on core and
supplemental knowledge. Both research in
psychology and marketing has documented
that consumers' knowledge has a significant
effect on their decision-making (e.g. Gatignon
and Robertson, 1991; Alba and Hutchinson,
1987). Moreau et al. (2001) proposed
knowledge to be innovation type specific
(continuous or discontinuous).
To use knowledge alone as segmentation
criteria as suggested by Moreau et al. (2001)
is not likely to suffice (Rogers, 1995).
Knowledge can determine how interested
consumers are in an innovation, but has
limited usefulness regarding adoption
(Rogers, 1995). This paper extends on the
concept of a knowledge-based approach of
innovation adoption. It proposes core
knowledge and supplemental knowledge to be
combined with a third dimension in the
adoption framework, compatibility
(``congruence''), which earlier research has
found to be an important predictor of
adoption behavior, to segment consumers
into adopter categories. Compatibility has
traditionally been regarded as a component
included in attitude development (Rogers,
1995). While it may be useful also at the
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
attitude stage of the adoption process, this
paper suggests consumer interest towards
adopting an innovation will already be limited
if the consumer does not experience any kind
of ``fit'' between his/her lifestyle, values, past
experiences and the technological innovation.
Hence, it should be taken into consideration
already at the knowledge stage.
This paper focuses on technological
innovations, for several reasons: first, the
lifecycle of technological products and
services is usually short; second, technological
innovations are more complex than other
innovative products or services and thus
require a great deal of consumer learning; and
third, the risk factor in the adoption decision
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
is high, since new technological products or
services rapidly become obsolete in terms of
being replaced with even newer products and
services. The definition of technology used
throughout this paper is the one by Rogers,
which emphasizes the uncertainty-reduction
and information aspect of technology, i.e.
technology is described as a means for
uncertainty reduction about the cause-effect
relationship involved in achieving a certain
outcome (Rogers, 1995, p. 12).
The purpose of this article is to present a
conceptual framework based on knowledge
and compatibility that would help researchers
and practitioners successfully identify
potential adopters of a technological
innovation. First, the innovation learning
process is analyzed and the impact of
knowledge on innovation comprehension is
examined. Thereafter, adopter categories are
presented based on knowledge and the effect
of compatibility on these categories is shown.
Finally, the implications of the model are
discussed.
Innovation types and their effect on
adoption
An innovation is ``an idea, practice, or object
that is perceived as new by an individual or
other unit of adoption'' (Rogers, 1995, p. 11).
The degree of the innovation is a subjective
phenomenon; the varying degree of consumer
expertise with different product categories
will influence the perceived innovation level.
Robertson (1971, p. 7) classifies
innovations based on their impact on
behavior and social structure into continuous,
dynamically continuous, and discontinuous.
91
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
Continuous products are slight modifications
to existing products and/or services (e.g.
introducing a new flavor for toothpaste,
adding more processing power to a
computer), whereas dynamically continuous
innovations may involve the creation of a new
product or service or modifications to existing
ones (e.g. wide-screen TVs, conference
calling). Discontinuous innovations represent
the creation of previously unknown products
that usually require a significant amount of
new learning, such as digital cameras and
videoconferencing. Lately, an additional
innovation level has been proposed, namely
multigenerational innovations that are newer
versions of existing products or services, such
as operating systems or game consoles (Kim et
al., 2001; Danaher et al., 2001). The
innovation classification scheme is of
importance when considering adoption
behavior since the innovation type will
directly affect the kind of knowledge that is
transferred to the new product/service;
continuous innovations are comprehended
differently from discontinuous ones (Moreau
et al., 2001).
Technological innovations are most likely
to fall into the discontinuous innovation
category (Moore, 1999) and can thus be
regarded as knowledge intensive innovations.
The knowledge needed for technological
innovation comprehension is likely to be
contingent upon the aspects of technology.
According to Rogers (1995), technology
consists both of a software and a hardware
component; the hardware aspect embodies
the technology as a material or physical object
(e.g. computers have hardware such as
semiconductors and electric cables) and
software is the information base used (e.g.
coded commands and instructions and other
information aspects). In many instances the
software part of technology is less observable
than the hardware part, but should
nevertheless be taken into consideration when
researching technology (Rogers, 1995). The
hardware-software mixture present in
technological innovations implies that
consumers might need to combine their
knowledge from several domains for complete
innovation comprehension; i.e. according to
Rogers' distinction both hardware and
software knowledge would be needed.
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
Consumer learning of discontinuous
innovations
Recent research has suggested that consumers
often use existing knowledge to learn about
innovative products or services (Yamauchi
and Markman, 2000; Gregan-Paxton and
Roedder John, 1997). Hence, when
evaluating a new product or service,
consumers often try to form an evaluation of
it by using existing nodes of knowledge from
multiple product or service categories.
Analogical learning theory suggests that
consumers faced with something unfamiliar
use familiar knowledge to understand and
comprehend the new phenomenon (Roehm
and Sternthal, 2001; Gregan-Paxton and
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
Roedder John, 1997). More specifically,
consumers use information from a familiar
domain (a base) and transfer it to the novel
domain (the target). This transfer occurs in
three stages: access, mapping, and transfer,
and the logic through which information is
transferred from the base to the target is the
ease through which the new product is
recognized as being something similar to what
a consumer has been exposed to before. The
mapping stage in the learning process can be
achieved through both relational and
attribute-based mappings depending on the
knowledge a consumer possesses in the base
area (Medin et al., 1993; Gentner and
Toupin, 1986). Experts are primarily
relation-driven (they know that function X is
related to outcome Y) while novices are often
attribute-driven (Gregan-Paxton and
Roedder John, 1997; Novick, 1988); often
novices do not possess enough knowledge in
the primary base domain to be able to
recognize the relational similarities between a
base and a target (Gentner, 1983). Hence,
novices rely on attribute-based information
such as visible product attributes (McKeithen
et al., 1981).
Comprehension of discontinuous
innovations involves the introduction of
entirely new knowledge structures (Gregan-
Paxton and Roedder John, 1997), hence
requiring extensive consumer learning.
Experts that mainly rely on relational
mappings are better able than novices to
understand what the new features of the
innovation are (Gregan-Paxton and Roedder
John, 1997). Realizing they cannot construct
a number of relational-based mappings
(suddenly function X does not relate to
92
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
outcome Y but to Z) they actually become
more aware than novices of what they do not
understand (Gentner et al., 1993). Novices,
on the other hand, are still likely to be able to
map a number of attributes from the base to
the target, and do not become as aware of the
differences. Moreau et al. (2001) used the
example of a digital camera to illustrate the
discontinuous mapping process. Camera
novices can map several surface-based
attributes such as lens, viewfinder, size and
shape to a digital camera, but experts realize
the relations they had previously mapped are
no longer valid (such as light no longer
exposes film, chemicals and darkrooms are no
longer needed etc.). Since novices are still
able to map perceived similarities between
existing products and the innovation whereas
experts are not, novices actually have a better
comprehension of the innovation than do
experts (Moreau et al., 2001).
Since many discontinuous innovations
cannot be successfully mapped into any
existing product or service category,
knowledge from additional domains might be
needed to comprehend fully the innovation.
The primary domain still serves as the basis
for the analogical learning process, enabling
consumers to develop a rudimentary structure
for the target domain, but a supplementary
domain is needed to fill in gaps that cannot be
comprehended by using the primary domain
(Moreau et al., 2001). In the example of the
digital camera, the primary domain (film-
based camera) does not explain how images
are processed. Hence, consumers might
combine this knowledge with information
from another domain, such as computers,
graphics software, and printing (Moreau et
al., 2001). The evaluation a consumer makes
about an innovation is thus dependent on the
knowledge a consumer possesses both in the
main product category and the supplemental
product category.
Moreau et al. (2001) discovered that
regarding discontinuous innovations, the
most propensive adopters were likely to be
consumers with extensive knowledge in the
supplemental product category or those
knowledgeable in both core and supplemental
product category, i.e. not solely experts in the
core domain. This notion contradicts the
traditional belief in innovation research that
innovators are characterized by vast product
category experience (Gatignon and
Robertson, 1991; Dickerson and Gentry,
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
1983; see Gatignon and Robertson, 1985 for
a review). Although experts' opinions about
technological innovations have not been
widely researched in academic literature,
Leonard-Barton's (1985) research about
specialized dentists supports the indication
that experts do not necessarily have a positive
attitude towards a technological innovation
and might work against its adoption.
Traditional consumer adopter
categories
Researchers have traditionally analyzed
consumers' adoption of innovations using
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
Rogers' (1962) five categories of adopters:
(1) namely innovators;
(2) early adopters;
(3) early majority;
(4) late majority; and
(5) laggards.
This distinction, which is built on
innovativeness, suggests targeting new
products and services to innovators who start
the diffusion process by communicating to
other adopter segments. This view has been
challenged in recent years, suggesting
targeting the majority might be more fruitful
than targeting innovators (Boyd and Mason,
1999; Mahajan and Muller, 1998) and the
time-of-adoption method used by Rogers
(1962) for measuring innovativeness is a
temporal concept that cannot be used for
predicting future behavior (Goldsmith and
Hofacker, 1991). Rogers' (1962) adopter
segments have been researched to a large
extent using personal characteristics;
innovators are described as venturesome
(``venturesomeness almost an obsession'',
Rogers, 1962), young, having more
cosmopolite social relationships, and having a
high degree of innovativeness. Both personal
characteristics and innovativeness have
received considerable attention in academia.
Individual adopter variables have mostly been
researched from an innovator perspective
(Ostlund, 1974; Darden and Reynolds, 1974;
Ostlund, 1972; Boone, 1970; Uhl et al., 1970;
Robertson, 1968, 1967) more recently in
combination with perceived innovation
attributes (Eastlick and Lotz, 1999; Eastlick,
1996) building a consensus around the
consumer innovator profile proposed by
Rogers (1962). Despite the attention given to
93
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
individual characteristics, several studies have
documented that their effect on adoption is
weak (Lockett and Littler, 1997; Holak,
1988; LaBay and Kinnear, 1981). Moreover,
the traditional personality variables given for
innovators seem to be less appropriate
regarding technological innovations.
Dickerson and Gentry (1983) found early
adopters of home computers to be ``logical
introverts'' in contrast to the social,
cosmopolitan view of innovators.
The major construct in Rogers' adopter
segments, innovativeness, is described as the
degree to which an individual or other unit of
adoption is relatively earlier in adopting new
ideas than the other members of a system
(Rogers, 1995, p. 22). According to this
definition, innovators that are the first to
adopt an innovation possess the greatest
degree of innovativeness, followed by early
adopters, early majority, late majority and
laggards. Innovativeness has caught the
interest of many researchers but has proven
difficult to measure. A common consensus
exists among researchers that there are
different kinds of innovativeness. Hirschman
(1980) and Goldsmith and Hofacker (1991)
distinguish between innate innovativeness
and domain specific innovativeness. Innate
innovativeness has been explained by a
consumer's cognitive style (Kirton, 1976) and
is, according to Goldsmith and Hofacker
(1991), of less interest for researchers to
measure than domain specific innovativeness,
since there is little if any innovativeness
overlap among product categories or domains
(Gatignon and Robertson, 1985; Midgley and
Dowling, 1978). Goldsmith and Hofacker
(1991, p. 211) define domain specific
innovativeness as reflecting ``. . . the tendency
to learn about and adopt innovations within a
specific domain of interest'', consisting of
both attitudinal and behavioral elements. The
former is reflected by positive feelings
consumer innovators have toward new
products in the category, and the latter
manifests behaviors resulting from their
feelings (Goldsmith and Hofacker, 1991,
p. 211). Hence, innovativeness is closely
related to consumers' willingness to educate
themselves about new products, having
positive attitudes towards new products, and
on basis of these positive attitudes adopting
them. In technological markets
innovativeness has been described as a
tendency to be a thought leader and
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
technology pioneer (Parasuraman, 2000) and
comprises self-sufficiency in terms of
confidently operating new technology and
having extensive technical knowledge
(Parasuraman and Colby, 2001).
The criterion for the adopter categorization
is innovativeness, but venturesomeness is the
salient value of innovators. Rogers (1995)
stated that the prerequisites of innovators
involve having substantial financial resources
to absorb possible loss from an unprofitable
innovation, the ability to understand and
apply complex technical knowledge, and
coping with a high degree of uncertainty.
Innovators' situation in current technological
markets might, however, emphasize the
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
emergence of other factors concurrent to the
ones proposed by Rogers. In technology
literature, innovators have been classified as
``techies'' or ``nerds'' that test the usefulness of
new innovations for corporations (Moore,
1991). Innovators are usually allowed to buy
``one of everything'' into organizations
(Moore, 1991), which drastically reduces the
risk (and thus the exercising of
venturesomeness) involved in acquiring new
products and services. Innovators also get
access to a large number of free products and
services (demos, alpha- or beta-versions,
samples) that they are asked to test and
possibly debug to reduce possible errors.
Hence, the decision to acquire technological
innovations is not related to innovativeness,
but rather to the number of technological
innovations introduced into the market. Since
innovations are usually free for innovators
(paid either by the corporation they work for
or the innovation is on a test stage and thus
free), the financial investment innovators have
to make has been reduced to a minimum.
Thus, factors other than possible financial
loss and a high degree of uncertainty are likely
to determine members of the technological
innovator category. This leaves the third
prerequisite, to understand and apply
complex technical knowledge, in a crucial
position when segmenting technological
innovators.
Innovators' positions make them more
exposed to technological innovations than
other adopter segments. Exposure to
innovations is of importance to innovators
who are interested in technology for its own
sake and enjoy examining technological
innovations. This innovation exposure does
not necessarily make innovators adopters,
94
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
since adoption refers to the continued use of a
product or service (Robertson, 1971; ``full
use'' Rogers, 1995) but due to innovators'
high interest in technological innovations they
do at least achieve the trial stage of most
innovations they encounter. This paper
defines adoption as ``continuous, voluntary
use of a product or service'' which means that
buying does not necessarily constitute
adoption (Venkatraman, 1991). Take the
Internet as an example. Many consumers first
learned about the Internet in their
workplaces, used it and learned to appreciate
it before they bought Internet access to their
homes. Hence, they were already adopters
before they actually bought and paid for the
innovation themselves. Still, many people use
Internet cafeÂs, libraries, schools and other
access points to use the Internet on a frequent
basis; they are adopters but not new product
buyers.
A new approach to segmenting
consumer adopters: knowledge and
compatibility
In technological markets, innovativeness is
characterized by extensive technical
knowledge, confidence in independently
operating new technology, and a willingness
to learn about technological innovations. A
more positive attitude towards technology is
also apparent. These innovativeness
constructs can be comprised under a more
general dimension, extensive technical
knowledge, since it is likely that consumers
knowledgeable in technology are more
interested in acquiring technological
knowledge than are novices (Mitchell and
Dacin, 1996), self-sufficient, and technically
confident (Parasuraman and Colby, 2001).
Since the knowledge dimension is part of the
model to be proposed in this paper,
innovativeness will not be represented as a
separate construct, but rather as an
embedded part of the proposed knowledge
dimensions. Hence, consumers with extensive
technical knowledge are assumed to be more
innovative than novices.
Consumer knowledge has been proposed to
consist of two elements: familiarity, which is
the number of product-related experiences
that has been accumulated by the consumer,
and expertise, the ability to perform product-
related tasks successfully (Alba and
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
Hutchinson, 1987). According to Rogers
(1995), knowledge occurs when an individual
learns of an innovation's existence and gains
some understanding of how it functions.
More specifically, in the knowledge stage, an
individual seeks information that reduces
uncertainty about the cause-effect
relationship involved in the innovation's
capacity to solve an individual's problem
(Rogers, 1995, p. 21). Knowledge about an
innovation is often quite different from using
it and knowledge alone cannot determine the
basis for adoption (Rogers, 1995, p. 167).
Congruence, or compatibility, has been
found to significantly affect adoption behavior
(Eastlick, 1996; Dabholkar, 1992; Dickerson
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
and Gentry, 1983; Tornatzky and Klein,
1982; Turnbull and Meenaghan, 1980;
Brandner and Kearl, 1964). Compatibility is
defined as the degree to which an innovation
is perceived as being consistent with the
existing values, past experiences, and the
needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 1995,
p. 15). Compatibility can also be related to a
lifestyle (Eastlick, 1996; Holak, 1988).
Research on technological innovations, e.g.
consumer durables and computer adoption,
has demonstrated that compatibility has a
significant impact on adoption behavior. In
their study of home computer adoption,
Dickerson and Gentry (1983) found adopters
to have more experience with a variety of
technical products than non-adopters. Holak
(1988) examined technological consumer
durables and found compatibility to have a
dominating, positive impact on consumer
purchase intention. Based on her results, she
stated:
Consumers are notably more concerned with
physical space and/or lifestyle compatibility than
with the operation or performance of the
innovation when considering purchase (Holak,
1988, p. 64).
Similarly, in a more recent study focusing on
technologically intensive innovations, Holak
and Lehmann (1990, p. 69) described the
following effect of compatibility on consumer
adoption:
Consumers are more concerned with a new
item's compatibility with their living patterns
and self-images than they are with more specific
information about its operating features or
benefits related to perceived relative advantage.
Moreover, non-scholarly research
demonstrates the effects of compatibility.
Accenture Institute for Strategic Change's
95
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
report about wireless usage (2001) shows that
despite the US lags after many European
countries and Japan in mobile penetration
and mobile data usage, US consumers are still
more likely to engage in mobile commerce
than those in high penetration countries. US
consumers, being pioneers in online buying,
are used to online and catalogue shopping
and have adopted in-home shopping as part
of their lifestyles.
Compatibility has often been used in the
evaluation stage of the adoption process as a
variable for attitude formation. This paper
suggests moving it to the knowledge
dimension, since consumers who feel that the
new product or service is not in tact with their
past experiences, lifestyle, values, and needs
are likely to reject the product or service
before it enters their consideration sets.
Rogers (1995, p. 164) states that individuals
avoid messages that are conceived to be in
conflict with existing needs, beliefs, and
attitudes; consumers do not ``see'' the
innovation even if they would be exposed to
it. In situations where consumers are
explicitly shown an innovation (e.g. by a
friend, salesperson, customer, at exhibitions
and trade shows), perceived compatibility or
incompatibility is likely to have an immediate
effect. Olshavsky and Spreng's (1996)
research experiment provides support for this
effect; they found that consumers
experiencing incompatibility with an
innovation rejected it without hesitance
(``quickly rejected'') and without assessing its
advantages and usability. Thus, a consumer
perceiving incompatibility between the
product and him/her will not progress further
in the adoption process but stop at the
knowledge stage.
This paper proposes a model for identifying
potential adopters based on knowledge and
compatibility. By moving the compatibility
dimension to the knowledge stage, we can
construct a more comprehensive picture of
potential adopter identification. Figure 1
describes the adopter segments based on core
and supplemental knowledge, and Figure 2
shows the connection between knowledge and
compatibility. Moreover, this paper proposes
generic labels for the adopter categories based
on knowledge. In the order of their adoption
propensity, the proposed adopter groups are:
technovators (experts in both core and
supplemental area), supplemental experts,
novices, and core experts. Examples of core
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
Figure 1 The technology adoption cycle
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
Figure 2 A model of adoption likelihood
and supplemental knowledge include e.g.
digital TVs (TV and Internet knowledge) and
PDAs (computer and software knowledge).
Consumer adopter categories
The technovators, or the technological
innovators, are the first ones to adopt new
technology. These consumers are thought
leaders and technology pioneers
(Parasuraman, 2000; Moore, 1999, both
using the term ``innovators''). This paper
defines a technovator as ``a person who
recognizes the benefits of new technology
earlier than others, adopts it, and
communicates these benefits to other adopter
segments''. Technovators appreciate
technology for its own sake, and are willing to
test and reduce errors in innovative products
96
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
just to get access to the latest technology
(Moore, 1991). Access to new technology
also brings technovators mental stimulation
(Parasuraman and Colby, 2001 using the
term ``explorers''). Technovators are high
involvement consumers. They are likely to
ascribe more net benefits to the innovation
than those with expertise in one or neither
base domain (Moreau et al., 2001).
Experts in a supplemental category are
proposed to be the next category to adopt.
Moreau et al.'s (2001) research experiment
showed that consumers low in camera
knowledge (core) yet high in computer
knowledge (supplemental) were the most
likely to adopt a digital camera. Supplemental
experts have the advantage of being able to
apply their knowledge into several different
products and services; their knowledge is not
constrained by a particular product or service
but rather the domain in which they operate
(e.g. software). The product or service itself
might require additional learning from this
segment; a person knowledgeable in radio
technologies understands the logic behind the
functionality of a GPRS phone, but might not
be able to use the phone without assistance.
Supplemental experts' flexible knowledge
structures make them evaluate innovations
more positively than core experts whose
knowledge structures are entrenched due to
earlier usage experiences of the same product
class.
Novices have no expertise in either core or
supplemental product or service area, which
makes them more open to innovations than
core experts since they have yet to establish
usage patterns and attach affect to the
product or service. They have fewer
dimensions available for comparing the
innovation to other product or services, and
are not able to understand the benefits of
using the innovation on such a thorough level
as experts (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987;
Cohen and Basu, 1987; Bettman and Park,
1980). However, Moreau et al. (2001) found
that for electrical cars, novices reported
higher preferences for the innovation than did
experts in one category only. Since novices
are not constrained by established knowledge
structures they are able to evaluate more
positively the innovation than core experts,
making them the third adopter category.
Core experts are the last group to adopt an
innovation. When realizing they cannot
construct a number of relational-based
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
mappings, their established knowledge creates
resistance towards the innovation, reducing
both comprehension and perceived net
benefits. Experts have elaborate knowledge
structures (Peracchio and Tybout, 1996) that
are entrenched and difficult to change
(Moreau et al., 2001). These knowledge
structures serve core experts to understand
continuous innovations, but hinder them to
understand discontinuous ones. Core experts
are confounded by not being able to
comprehend fully discontinuous innovations,
which they are not used to, since most
innovations introduced into the marketplace
are continuous (see Robertson, 1971). Thus,
core experts are likely to show distrust
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
towards new technology (``still an unproven
technology'', see Leonard-Barton, 1985)
doubting that it will work properly and more
efficiently (``severe technical problems
associated with use'', see Leonard-Barton,
1985) and be better than what they currently
use. Several experts are also likely to feel that
part of their knowledge base is becoming
obsolete by the introduction of new
technologies and hence oppose discontinuous
innovations.
The effect of compatibility
Compatibility and respectively
incompatibility will affect adopter segments
differently. The effects of both compatibility
continuums are summarized in Figure 2.
These effects are simply illustrative examples;
there are a number of other ways in which the
same effect could be documented. Figure 2
serves the purpose of showing the direction of
the adoption likelihood.
On a general level, low compatibility
(or incompatibility, terms will be used
interchangeably) will affect potential
adopters in a negative manner (i.e. they are
less willing to adopt) since the innovation
does not fill a need or fit into their lifestyles or
current situations. An example could be
consumers that value interpersonal contact
that are unwilling to switch to Internet
shopping or electronic banking due to loss of
social contact.
As more specific examples of
incompatibility, we can take a closer look
at technovators and core experts. For
technovators the innovation represents
new technology so they will try it out of
97
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
curiosity. They could use it for demo
purposes or to promote the manufacturer or
service provider (e.g. own workplace or
strategic partner), but long-term usage is
likely to be low. Hence, the adoption is based
on not finding anything newer or better to use
at the moment. This decision is volatile;
switching to another product or service is
easy. Core experts who do not feel that the
product or service is compatible with their
current needs, lifestyles, and past experiences,
will stick to products or services that allow
them to construct more fully relation-based
mappings. Instead of buying a digital camera,
they prefer a more traditional innovative
camera with new features, which is easier for
them to comprehend and to which to
associate benefits.
Compatibility, on the other hand, is likely
to enhance every segment's adoption
propensity. A consumer who realizes that an
innovation would be compatible with his/her
needs, lifestyle, and/or values is more willing
to adopt. Compatibility is of special
importance in technological markets, since a
common reason cited by consumers for not
adopting technological innovations is ``no
need'' (see, for example, Zeithaml and Gilly,
1987) even though a technological innovation
usually entails at least some degree of benefit
for its potential adopters (Rogers, 1995, p. 13).
As examples of the effect of compatibility,
we can examine the corresponding segments
as in incompatibility. Hence, in the example
of a digital camera, a camera expert who is
used to sending a large number of pictures
over the Internet using his/her scanner might
realize that the digital camera would be more
suitable for his/her needs than a regular one.
Thus, he/she might realize that there would
be a number of benefits associated with the
digital camera (e.g. in terms of saving time,
reduced effort, better picture quality). The
compatibility of the digital camera makes the
camera expert willing to learn and educate
him/herself in order to be able to operate the
innovation fully, which eventually moves the
camera expert closer to the technovator
dimension.
For novices, compatibility might entail
starting to use self-service banking if they have
difficulties going to the bank during its
opening hours, or perceive they have better
control over financial transactions by using
electronic means. In such situations, novices
are likely to perceive self-service banking to be
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
more compatible with their current needs and
lifestyles than the personal service at a bank
branch. Similarly, research has found that
consumers that are used to catalog shopping
are more likely to adopt other forms of in-
home ordering (Greco and Fields, 1991;
Ledingham, 1984), such as Internet
shopping, Digital TV shopping, and mobile
shopping.
The adopter categories built on knowledge
and the hypothesized intertwined role of
compatibility are likely to have an effect on
the adoption process as a whole. The
evaluation stage, which is the proceeding
stage of knowledge, is likely to be significantly
affected by the model proposed in this paper.
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
The evaluation stage is signified by attitude
development and attribute and benefit
interpretation, first on a more general level
and then on a brand specific level (Bettman
and Park, 1980). Every adopter category is
likely to interpret the perceived benefits of
innovations differently, a process in which
existing knowledge and compatibility are
likely to have significant roles.
Discussion and implications
The two knowledge dimensions used in the
framework are oversimplified, taken into
account that knowledge is a multidimensional
construct (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987).
Consumers can have a number of
supplemental areas they combine knowledge
from to comprehend a technological
innovation. Increasingly complex products or
services are being introduced to the market,
positively affecting the number of
supplemental categories consumers might use
(e.g. when evaluating a digital set-top box,
consumers might need to combine the
knowledge they have from digital video
recorders, CD players, DVD players, MP3
music players, and Internet usage to
comprehend fully the innovation). The
number of supplemental categories should
not be limited if one wants to fully capture the
areas that consumers use to comprehend the
innovation. To capture core and
supplemental categories, researchers could
examine consumer associations with the
innovation (e.g. with the help of key-word
memory probes, see Mitchell and Dacin,
1996, p. 220) or use the hardware and
software aspects of technology (Rogers, 1995,
98
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
p. 12) utilizing hardware knowledge as core
product knowledge and software as
supplemental. Expertise could be determined
by self-reported measures of knowledge
(Sujan, 1985), consumer familiarity with
product categories (Johnson and Russo,
1984), knowledge elaboration levels
(Peracchio and Tybout, 1996), or a
combination of the methods described above.
Empirical research is needed to assess the
appropriateness of different methods for
developing a measurement tool for the
proposed framework.
Technological innovations usually involve a
substantial learning effort. Thus, consumers
are likely to feel that once they learn how to
operate one brand's products or services, they
are hesitant to switch, since it would involve
learning a new ``logic'' or process flow. As
proposed by the framework, consumers are
more likely to learn and educate themselves
about an innovation if it is perceived
compatible. Learning or education should,
however, be targeted to each adopter
segment. Core experts could find it useful to
learn about a supplemental product category
that can complement their existing
knowledge, whereas supplemental experts are
likely to appreciate core category knowledge
to learn how to operate the innovation. If,
however, the product or service is perceived
as incompatible, education might increase
resistance among some adopter categories.
This framework could be used to indicate
how complex a company's product should be.
Technovators are likely to appreciate a more
complex innovation that allows them to utilize
their expertise in a more coherent manner
whereas for novices, a simple version of the
same product is likely to suffice. The
estimated complexity should be weighted
towards consumer willingness to learn about
the new product and/or service.
Each adopter segment is likely to view
perceived innovation attributes differently.
Further research should examine the effects
of the proposed framework on perceived net
benefits (relative advantages versus risk) and
its effect on the adoption decision. Previous
research results indicate that technovators are
likely to weigh perceived risk in a less negative
manner than novices (Parasuraman and
Colby, 2001, using the term ``explorers'' to
signify innovators), but little is known about
experts in core and supplemental product or
service category. Compatibility is likely to
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
increase the relative advantages associated
with adoption (Holak and Lehmann, 1990),
but its impact on perceived net benefits has
not been researched extensively. Consumer
education about a product or service is likely
to reduce the perceived uncertainty of
adopting new technology, since education
could serve as a mean for companies to
address potential adopter concerns about
perceived risk factors associated with
adoption of technological innovations (e.g.
security and reliability issues).
References
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
Accenture Institute for Strategic Change (2001), ``The
future of wireless: different than you think, bolder
than you imagine'', Research Report, Cambridge,
MA, pp. 1-55.
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), ``Dimensions of
consumer expertise'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13, pp. 41-454.
Alba, J., Lynch, J., Weitz, B., Janiszewski, C., Lutz, R.,
Sawyer, A. and Wood, S. (1997), ``Interactive home
shopping: consumer, retailer, and manufacturer
incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces'',
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61, pp. 38-53.
Bettman, J.R. and Park C.W. (1980), ``Effects of prior
knowledge and experience and phase of the choice
process on consumer decision processes: a protocol
analysis'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 7,
pp. 234-48.
Boone, L.E. (1970), ``The search for the consumer
innovator'', Journal of Business, Vol. 43, pp. 135-40.
Boyd, T.C. and Mason, C.H. (1999), ``The link between
attractiveness of `extrabrand' attributes and the
adoption of innovations'', Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 27, pp. 306-19.
Brandner, L. and Kearl, B. (1964), ``Evaluation for
congruence as a factor in adoption rate of
innovations'', Rural Sociology, Vol. 29, pp. 288-303.
Cohen, J.B. and Basu, K. (1987), ``Alternative models of
categorization: toward a contingent processing
framework'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 13
No. 4, pp. 455-72.
Dabholkar, P.A. (1992), ``Role of affect and need for
interaction in on-site service encounters'', in Sherry,
J.F. and Sternthal, B. (Eds), Advances in Consumer
Research, Association of Consumer Research, Provo,
UT, pp. 563-9.
Danaher, P.J., Hardie, B.G. and Putsis Jr, W.P. (2001),
``Marketing-mix variables and the diffusion of
successive generations of a technological
innovation'', Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38,
pp. 501-14.
Darden, W.R. and Reynolds, F.D. (1974), ``Backward
profiling of male innovators'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. XI, pp. 79-85.
Dickerson, M.D. and Gentry, J.W. (1983), ``Characteristics
of adopters and non-adopters of home computers'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 10, pp. 225-35.
99
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
Eastlick, M.A. (1996), ``Consumer intention to adopt
interactive teleshopping'', Marketing Science
Institute Working Paper No. 96-113.
Eastlick, M.A. and Lotz, S. (1999), ``Profiling potential
adopters and non-adopters of an interactive
electronic shopping medium'', International Journal
of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 209-23.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1985), ``A propositional
inventory for new diffusion research'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 849-67.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1991), ``Innovative
decision processes'', in Robertson, T.S. and
Kassarjian, H.H. (Eds), Handbook of Consumer
Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
pp. 316-48.
Gentner, D. (1983), ``Structure mapping: a theoretical
framework for analogy'', Cognitive Science, Vol. 7,
pp. 155-70.
Gentner, D. and Toupin, C. (1986), ``Systematicity and
surface similarities in the development of analogy'',
Cognitive Science, Vol. 10, pp. 277-300.
Gentner, D., Ratterman, M.J. and Forbus, K. (1993), ``The
roles of similarity transfer: separating retrievability
from inferential soundness'', Cognitive Psychology,
Vol. 25, pp. 524-75.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991), ``Measuring
consumer innovativeness'', Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 209-21.
Greco, A.J. and Fields, D.M. (1991), ``Profiling early triers
of service innovations: a look at interactive home
video ordering services'', Journal of Services
Marketing, Vol. 5, pp. 19-26.
Gregan-Paxton, J. and Roedder John, D. (1997),
``Consumer learning by analogy: a model of internal
knowledge transfer'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 24, pp. 266-84.
Hirschman, E.C. (1980), ``Innovativeness, novelty seeking
and consumer creativity'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 7, pp. 283-95.
Holak, S.L. (1988), ``Determinants of innovative durable
adoption: an empirical study with implications for
early product screening'', Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 5, pp. 50-69.
Holak, S.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (1990), ``Purchase
intentions and the dimensions of innovation: an
exploratory model'', Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 7, pp. 59-73.
Johnson, E.J. and Russo, J.E. (1984), ``Product familiarity
and learning new information'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, pp. 542-50.
Kim, N., Srivastava, R.K. and Han, J.K. (2001), ``Consumer
decision-making in a multi-generational choice set
context'', Journal of Business Research, Vol. 53,
pp. 123-36.
Kirton, M.J. (1976), ``Adapters and innovators: a
description and measure'', Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 622-9.
LaBay, D.G. and Kinnear, T.C. (1981), ``Exploring the
consumer decision process in the adoption of solar
energy systems'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 8, pp. 271-8.
Ledingham, J.A. (1984), ``Are consumers ready for the
information age? Consumer predispositions and
videotex'', Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 24
No. 4, pp. 31-7.
 Consumer adoption of technological innovations
Maria Saaksjarvi
Leonard-Barton, D. (1985), ``Experts as negative opinion
leaders in the diffusion of a technological
innovation'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 11,
pp. 914-26.
Lockett, A. and Littler, D. (1997), ``The adoption of direct
banking services'', Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 13, pp. 791-811.
McKeithen, K., Reitman, J., Rueter, H. and Hirtle, S.
(1981), ``Knowledge organization and skill
differences in computer programmers'', Cognitive
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 307-25.
Mahajan, V. and Muller, E. (1998), ``When is it worthwhile
targeting the majority instead of the innovators in a
new product launch?'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. XXXV, pp. 488-95.
Medin, D., Goldstone, R. and Gentner, D. (1993),
``Respects for similarity'', Psychological Review,
Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 254-78.
Midgley, D.F. and Dowling, G.R. (1978), ``Innovativeness:
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)
the concept and its measurement'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 229-42.
Mitchell, A.A. and Dacin, P.A. (1996), ``The assessment of
alternative measures of consumer expertise'',
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23, pp. 219-39.
Moore, G.A. (1991), Crossing the Chasm, Harper Business,
New York, NY.
Moreau, C.P., Lehmann, D.R. and Markman, A.B. (2001),
``Entrenched knowledge structures and consumer
response to new products'', Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 38, pp. 14-29.
Novick, L. (1988), ``Analogical transfer, problem similarity,
and expertise'', Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 510-20.
Olshavsky, R.W. and Spreng, R.A. (1996), ``An exploratory
study of the innovation evaluation process'', Journal
of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13,
pp. 512-29.
Ostlund, L.E. (1972), ``Identifying early buyers'', Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 25-30.
Ostlund, L.E. (1974), ``Perceived innovation attributes as
predictors of innovativeness'', Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 1, pp. 23-9.
Parasuraman, A. (2000), ``Technology readiness index
(TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to
embrace new technology'', Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 307-20.
Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2001), Techno-Ready
Marketing, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Peracchio, L.A. and Tybout, A.M. (1996), ``The moderating
role of prior knowledge in schema-based product
evaluation'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 23,
pp. 177-92.
Robertson, T.S. (1967), ``Consumer innovators: the key to
new product success'', California Management
Review, Vol. 10, pp. 23-30.
100
European Journal of Innovation Management
Volume 6 . Number 2 . 2003 . 90-100
Robertson, T.S. (1968), ``Purchase sequence responses:
innovators vs non-innovators'', Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 47-52.
Robertson, T.S. (1971), Innovative Behavior and
Communication, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New
York, NY.
Roehm, M.L. and Sternthal, B. (2001), ``The moderating
effect of knowledge and resources on the
persuasive impact of analogies'', Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 257-72.
Rogers, E.M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, The Free
Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (1976), ``New product adoption and
diffusion'', Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2,
pp. 290-301.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Sujan, M. (1985), ``Consumer knowledge: effects on
evaluation strategies mediating consumer
judgements'', Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 12, pp. 31-46.
Tornatzky, L.G and Klein, K.J. (1982), ``Innovation
characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: a meta-analysis of findings'', IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 29,
pp. 28-45.
Turnbull, P.W. and Meenaghan, A. (1980), ``Diffusion of
innovation and opinion leadership'', European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 3-33.
Uhl, K., Andrus, R. and Poulsen, L. (1970), ``How are
laggards different? an empirical inquiry'', Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. VII, pp. 51-4.
Venkatraman, M.P. (1991), ``The impact of innovativeness
and innovation type on adoption'', Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Yamauchi, T. and Markman, A.B. (2000), ``Inference using
categories'', Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, Vol. 26,
pp. 776-95.
Zeithaml, V.A. and Gilly, M.C. (1987), ``Characteristics
affecting the acceptance of retailing technologies: a
comparison of elderly and non-elderly consumers'',
Journal of Retailing, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 49-68.
Further reading
Goldstone, R., Medin, D. and Gentner, D. (1991),
``Relational similarity and nonindependence of
features in similarity judgements'', Cognitive
Psychology, Vol. 23, pp. 222-62.
Shim, S., Eastlick, M.A., Lotz, S.L. and Warrington, P.
(2001), ``An online prepurchase intentions model:
the role of intention to search'', Journal of Retailing,
Vol. 77, pp. 397-416.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yet Mee Lim, Tat Huei Cham. 2015. A profile of the Internet shoppers: Evidence from nine countries. Telematics and
Informatics 32, 344-354. [CrossRef]
2. Chirag Patel, Christophe Haon. 2014. Internally Versus Externally Developed Technology and Market Acceptance of
Innovations: The Complementary Role of Branding. European Management Review 11:10.1111/emre.2014.11.issue-2,
173-186. [CrossRef]
3. Jiyoung Hwang, Linda Good. 2014. Intelligent sensor-based services success: the role of consumer characteristics and
information. European Journal of Marketing 48:3/4, 406-431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. Niklas Arvidsson. 2014. Consumer attitudes on mobile payment services – results from a proof of concept test. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 32:2, 150-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Niklas Eriksson. 2014. User categories of mobile travel services. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology 5:1, 17-30.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Lukman Aroean, Nina Michaelidou. 2014. A taxonomy of mobile phone consumers: insights for marketing managers. Journal
of Strategic Marketing 22, 73-89. [CrossRef]
7. Carolin Plewa, Indrit Troshani, Anthony Francis, Giselle Rampersad. 2012. Technology adoption and performance impact
in innovation domains. Industrial Management & Data Systems 112:5, 748-765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by DELFT UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY At 05:01 01 April 2015 (PT)

8. Giselle Rampersad, Carolin Plewa, Indrit Troshani. 2012. Investigating the use of information technology in managing
innovation: A case study from a university technology transfer office. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management
29, 3-21. [CrossRef]
9. Regina C. McNally, Erin Cavusgil, Roger J. Calantone. 2010. Product Innovativeness Dimensions and Their Relationships
with Product Advantage, Product Financial Performance, and Project Protocol. Journal of Product Innovation Management
27:10.1111/jpim.2010.27.issue-7, 991-1006. [CrossRef]
10. Tommi Laukkanen, Vesa Kiviniemi. 2010. The role of information in mobile banking resistance. International Journal of
Bank Marketing 28:5, 372-388. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Tommi Laukkanen, Suvi Sinkkonen, Pekka Laukkanen. 2009. Communication strategies to overcome functional and
psychological resistance to Internet banking. International Journal of Information Management 29, 111-118. [CrossRef]
12. Howard Forman, Susan K. Lippert, Prabakar Kothandaraman. 2007. Understanding users' performance evaluation of IT
solutions. Industrial Marketing Management 36, 745-756. [CrossRef]
13. Yuan Lu, Elke den Ouden, Aarnout Brombacher, Wim Geudens, Herman Hartmann. 2007. Towards a more systematic
analysis of uncertain user–product interactions in product development: an enhanced user–product interaction framework.
Quality and Reliability Engineering International 23:10.1002/qre.v23:1, 19-29. [CrossRef]
14. A. Huotilainen, A.-M. Pirttilä-backman, H. Tuorila. 2006. How innovativeness relates to social representation of new foods
and to the willingness to try and use such foods. Food Quality and Preference 17, 353-361. [CrossRef]
15. Jana Bowden, David Corkindale. 2005. Identifying the initial target consumer for innovations: an integrative approach.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 23:6, 562-573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

View publication stats