who innovates, who follows?

So this week has been all about this, with our starting point as Rogers Diffusion of innovations and his categories of people as ‘innovators’, ‘early adopters’ early majority’ ‘late majority’ and ‘laggards’. Rogers explores why it is that some people take up innovation before others.

I think its fair to sat that we all recognised the general terminology being used and could equate these labels to people we knew, or general personality types. Most of us however struggle when he started putting social or political references to these terms. It may be that back in the 1950s it may have rung true. Innovators may have been those who were more upwardly mobile financially secure and considered more ‘intelligent’. However I am not sure that this rings true in 2011. This may be partly because of the role that social media and open sources have played in making a more open playing field. Certainly where technology is concerned, the newest innovations are no longer the preserve of the ‘upper classes’. Social media developments are a class leveller.

I also think that generational differences also have a part to play. Our generation Y’s are growing up with technology imbedded in everyday lives, yet some of us X’s are still trying to come to grips with basic things like audio conferencing!

We also raised the important point that where we as individuals sit, and this changes dependant upon the circumstance, environment etc, it often not where we might sit within our professional lives. Certainly listening to others experiences shows that the larger the institution/organisation, the harder it is to be a part of driving innovation. I guess this is why the adopter roles are so important.

When thinking about who leads and who follows, we have also been struggling with the difference between innovators and adopters. I think there is often some crossover depending on your viewpoint and the situation. It may be that the innovators created the innovations, or that they are the first people to take it and use it.

“..early adopters and innovators do not differ from each other regarding structural characteristics. However they appear to differ in behavioural characteristics: innovators make more use of external sources of information and they are more involved in the actual development of innovations.”
http://www.inra.fr/esr/publications/cahiers/pdf/diederen.pdf viewed 20.02.2011

I think this also brings us back to our understandings of innovations, and how we use our terminology. It’s interesting to see people refer to themselves or their institutions as laggards or categorise them as way behind. I think that it’s easy to get caught up in the idea that technology may be way more advanced than where we our. The case studies helped us to focus that. To be innovate, the organisation needs to be in a position to be innovative. This is why smaller companies can often manage it better. They have fewer resources and can adapt and change more readily. The bigger the organisation the more layers to get through – and often they don’t. It is not our fault if it takes ten years to adopt  a new idea.  In this case we should draw on the positive small steps of innovation – otherwise we sink into the murky waters of inadequacy. It’s not always about speed as Pettit says.
So what about the chasm? I guess the chasm really is about whether the innovation ‘flies’ with the masses and who are the ones it is being marketed at.

I went on at this point to read Darwin and the Devil. I particularly liked this approach as it picked up many of the themes we have started discussing. Different kinds of innovation effect different groups and should be approached at different time. In my head I see innovation as creating a culture, where there is a cycle that can continue, and it is dependent on the successful integration of innovation, but still allowing for new creativity.

This is why for my criteria for the 4^th Activity were promotion of creativity, sustainability and evaluation. I want to ensure something has that spark of genius and excitement, but that it can be underpinned by sound structure and evaluation. (past or present). Interestingly in this task, many people saw success as important, but probably everyone came at success from a different viewpoint. I am wary of success per se without some underlying systematic approach. What works for one group doesn’t necessarily work for others…and back we go to crossing the chasm!