Evolutionary Diffusion Theory

Introduction

A variety of theoretical frameworks and approaches have been used to study Information Systems (IS) diffusion processes (see, for example, Holbrook and Salazar, 2004; Baskerville and Pries-Heje, 2001; Edquist, 1997). Investigations of a number of these theories and models of Innovative Technology Uptake (ITU) have found that each has only a narrow perspective which tends to capture ‘just one part of the story’ and only highlights particular areas of interest. No single theory appears uniquely able to explain the circumstances of any particular case (Jones and Myers, 2001 p.1018).

Despite these limitations, influences on uptake and diffusion of IT innovations are of perennial interest to IS researchers. Those attempting to make progress in identifying key issues affecting uptake have had to grapple with the limited explanatory power of recognised diffusion theories over some four decades. The most commonly cited diffusion theory in the IS literature is Rogers’ Classical Diffusion of Innovation (DoI) theory, first published in 1961 (Clarke 1999). Rogers originally focused attention on the shape of the diffusion curve, describing innovation as a process that moves through an initial phase of generating variety in technology, to selecting across that variety to produce patterns of change resulting in feedback from the selection process, to the development of further variation (Rogers, 1995).

As a pioneering contribution to conceptualising adoption and diffusion, Classical DoI theory appears to have maintained its iconic status over time and continues to be cited in the IS literature, despite the fact that interest in innovation studies has moved on from the shape of the diffusion curve to a focus on articulating underlying dynamic mechanisms (Lissoni and Metcalfe, 1994; Nelson, 2002). The innovation ‘journey’ now appears to be more readily understood as a non-linear dynamic system, far less predictable and stable than staged models based on Classical DoI theory represented it to be (see for example Van de Ven et al., 1999). The static orientation of Classical DoI theory, its focus on individual firms and a ‘single innovation’ perspective has diminished its relevance to the IS field and to the development of online technologies in particular.

The limited explanatory power of Classical DoI theory is well documented in the literature (see, for example, Downes and Mohr, 1976; Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Damsgaard and Lyytinen, 1996; Galliers and Swan, 1999; Clarke, 2002). Seminal work in the IS field (for example: Orlikowski and Hofman, 1997; Boudreau and Robey, 1999; Reich and Benbasat, 2000) has also clearly established a need for analytical theory in this field which:

• •

  Aligns more closely with the way beliefs, attitudes and understanding of plans and structures are known to influence organisational decision-making

• •

  Can articulate underlying dynamic mechanisms intrinsic to adoption and diffusion processes

• •

  Addresses how complex and networked technologies diffuse

• •

  Acknowledges the uncertainty and surprises that mark the ITU process