Adoption of new methods - readings
"Glen B. Alleman" <[email protected]> Sun, 5 Jan 2003 18:58:45 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.extreme-customering |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C2B4EC.79308660 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The discussion of "why it's hard to convince C-Types that XP - or the like - will save the world," is rooted in the general theory of cognitive action. Decision and individual adoption models are based on the following concepts: (1) The lead or most influential person has been found to have a disproportionate role in decision making. (2) Selection decisions can have considerable negative consequences if they are subsequently determined to be suboptimal, particularly for the decision maker. There are several theories for acceptance of new technologies: (1) Technology Acceptance Model (2) Theory of Reasoned Action (3) Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (4) Diffusions of Innovation All these theories talk about the processes by which decisions are made to adopt new and potentially risky methods, technology, processes. To simply criticize the C-Level for failing to understand the benefits of an new and innovative method (say XP), is to ignore the underlying processes used to make decisions at the C-Level. A recent paper "Mimetic Isomorphism and Technology Evaluation: Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?", Peter Tingling and Michael Parent, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol 3, 2002, pp. 113-143 addresses this very issue and is worth the effort to locate. The bottom line of the research described in the paper is that C-Level make decisions in the following ways: (1) Many technological choice are embedded with and constrained by prior existing choices. (2) Contradictions in thought process are common in complex decision making processes These decisions are driven by the following factors (1) Level of innovation - a measure of the overall level of innovation or propensity to adopt a new or unproven technology. (2) Uncertainty avoidance - the extent to which a firm feels threatened by the uncertain of unknown consequences of a decision (3) Mimetic Isomorphism - the degree to which the early adopter selection decisions a firm makes resemble those of other firms as a response to uncertainty. Now when it is suggested that the C-Types simply need to "listen" to the message and they will be able to make the right decision, it might be appropriate to consider the factors above and how "the message" of agility can be adapted to fit the listener's decision making process. Glen B. Alleman Director, Program Management Office Kaiser-Hill LLC Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site Golden, Colorado [email protected] +1.303.966.5865 Office +1.303.994.0874 NexTel ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C2B4EC.79308660 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1126" name=GENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>The discussion of "why it's hard to convince C-Types that XP - or the like - will save the world," is rooted in the general theory of cognitive action. Decision and individual adoption models are based on the following concepts:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(1) The lead or most influential person has been found to have a disproportionate role in decision making.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(2) Selection decisions can have considerable negative consequences if they are subsequently determined to be suboptimal, particularly for the decision maker.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are several theories for acceptance of new technologies:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(1) Technology Acceptance Model</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(2) Theory of Reasoned Action</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(3) Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(4) Diffusions of Innovation </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>All these theories talk about the processes by which decisions are made to adopt new and potentially risky methods, technology, processes.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>To simply criticize the C-Level for failing to understand the benefits of an new and innovative method (say XP), is to ignore the underlying processes used to make decisions at the C-Level.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>A recent paper "Mimetic Isomorphism and Technology Evaluation: Does Imitation Transcend Judgment?", Peter Tingling and Michael Parent, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol 3, 2002, pp. 113-143 addresses this very issue and is worth the effort to locate.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>The bottom line of the research described in the paper is that C-Level make decisions in the following ways:</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(1) Many technological choice are embedded with and constrained by prior existing choices.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(2) Contradictions in thought process are common in complex decision making processes</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>These decisions are driven by the following factors</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(1) Level of innovation - a measure of the overall level of innovation or propensity to adopt a new or unproven technology.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(2) Uncertainty avoidance - the extent to which a firm feels threatened by the uncertain of unknown consequences of a decision</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>(3) Mimetic Isomorphism - the degree to which the early adopter selection decisions a firm makes resemble those of other firms as a response to uncertainty.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now when it is suggested that the C-Types simply need to "listen" to the message and they will be able to make the right decision, it might be appropriate to consider the factors above and how "the message" of agility can be adapted to fit the listener's decision making process.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030563801-06012003><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Glen B. Alleman</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Director, Program Management Office</FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Kaiser-Hill LLC</FONT></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030412602-26102002><FONT face=Arial size=2>Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=030412602-26102002><FONT face=Arial size=2>Golden, Colorado</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><A href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</A></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2>+1.303.966.5865<SPAN class=030412602-26102002> Office</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=2><SPAN class=030412602-26102002>+1.303.994.0874 NexTel</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <br> <br> <tt> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<BR> extremecustomering-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org<BR> <BR> </tt> <br> <br> <tt>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.</tt> </br> </BODY></HTML> ------=_NextPart_000_007E_01C2B4EC.79308660--