The factors influencing the rate at which any given innovation spreads throughout a population are well known. Applying those factors remains a bit of an art, but the exercise is always instructive. That's especially so when we start thinking about marketing investments.

The single best source of information on this subject, imho, remains Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations. Although I've been told recently that Rogers has been challenged in some circles. I'd love to know more about the proposed alternatives.

Diffusion of Innovations, 5th Edition
by Everett M. Rogers, Everett Rogers

Read more about this title...

Overall we consider these things:

  • The attributes of the innovation
  • The nature of the culture
  • The nature of the decision
  • Change agent impact

Let's look (very) briefly at each of these with regard to how they apply to Microsoft customer adoption of online social networking services.

The attributes of the innovation are relative advantage, observability, trialability, complexity, and compatibility.

  • Relative advantage: this should be a big plus for us. Adopters will have distinct advantages in terms of domain knowledge generally, and it's currency specifically. Over time this expresses itself as fewer surprises, less downtown, greater productivity.
  • Observability: This one is harder. You have to be in close proximity and observe an adopter over a period of time to observe greater productivity due to improved knowledge acquisition. And the activity that leads to the improvements isn't highly observable itself. Therefore, we're going to have to increase observability. Contests, for instance, wherein the most connected people are provided observable rewards, come immediately to mind.
  • Trialability: I don't know if this is an immediate plus or not. Everything we do is immediately trialable, but for compatibility reasons the success of the trial is questionable. Until we've had a chance to deliver the "social network placement" services -- aka subscription services -- ease of trial could be a problem with some people quitting when benefits aren't immediately (first week or two) apparent. Greater knowledge takes time to accumulate. Finding the right feeds takes time to do. As we simplify entry, this will be a big plus, but until then it may well cut the other way. Perhaps this suggests improved tutorial/getting started material?
  • Complexity: Another problem for us here. While not exactly complex, it is different. We've found that even understanding weak-tie networks as community is something the uninitiated have a very hard time understanding. Once in, however, it all seems so natural. It's the initial bump however that's tough.
  • Compatibility: Jeez, another problem. To most people using a feed reader is just adding more information to the already too long list of things to read. Microsoft's technology professional customers are mostly in the 35+ category -- me too, btw. That means long established work habits and corresponding habits of thought. Social systems are easily picked up by the under 30 crowd. The trick then, as we've always imagined, will be to integrate the new services into the traditional applications in a way that makes them easy to consume.

The nature of the culture here might just help. Information workers generally, and technology professionals specifically, remain effective as long as they have access to the right information at the right time. Therefore, they have an enormous amount to gain picking up the new tools. Because technology changes as often as it does, "new" is not as horrifying as it might be to some information workers. The pace of technology change may make it conceptually easier to jump into the new tools for the technology professional.

The nature of the decision is interesting in this case. No government is going to mandate participation. And not everyone has to play for the game to be productive. Further, we're already past the need for a bootstrap solution. There are already enough players to get things going for anyone that wants in. I say this is a net neutral -- maybe a positive.

Change agent impact is a wild card cause we're the change agent at the moment. We don't currently have budget, and we're still figuring out how the new organizational reality we face is going to effect us -- could go either way in the short term, though I don't think it can be anything but positive in the longer run. But do we need marketing budget? Part of me likes to spend money. And I do think spending money could accelerate adoption -- it could certainly raise awareness. On the other hand, no money forces us to be creative. We like that part of the job the most. Another part of me thinks there might be another change agent in the works...

That's just a very quick look. I can imagine expanding any of the above considerably. But it's a start. 

Ever used this model? Got a better one?

Crossposted, as always, on theworkingnetwork.

 

Tags: