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 cross-

disciplinary 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 Description

1. Knowledge “Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) is exposed to an

innovation’s existence and gains an understanding of how it functions”
2. Persuasion “Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) forms a favorable or
an unfavorable attitude towards the innovation”
3. Decision “Takes place when an individual (or other decision-making unit) engages in
activities that lead to a choice to adopt or reject the innovation”
4. Implementation “Occurs when an individual (or other decision-making unit) puts a new idea into
use”
5. Confirmation “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 10

Figure 1

The Innovation-Decision Process

(Rogers, 2003, p. 170)

INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY 11

Figure 2

Classifications of Adopters

(Rogers, 2003, p. 281) adapted from Fryer (2008).

INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY 12

Figure 3

The Chasm

(Moore, 1999, p. 17) adapted from Watson (2006).

INNOVATION DIFFUSION THEORY 13

Table 2

Adopter Categories

Percent of Generalizations
Stage Description
Social System of Category
Innovators 2.5 Venturesome  “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).
Early 13.5 Respect  “has the highest degree of opinion
Adopters leadership in most systems” (p. 283).
 “Early adopters help trigger the critical
mass when they adopt an innovation” (p.
283).
Early Majority 34 Deliberate  “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).
Late Majority 34 Skeptical  “adopt new ideas just after the average
member of a system” (p. 284).
 “The pressure of peers is necessary to
motivate adoption” (p. 284).
Laggards 16 Traditional  “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).
(Rogers, 2003)