Maltrato como un equivalente de amor

to the program.

The description of activities can be facilitated by incorporating Rogers’ theory of change described in Chapter 2 (i.e., diffusion of innovations) into the logic model. Rogers’ theory of change provides a set of hypothesized concepts and linkages that can be used as a guide when attempting to describe how outputs generate the desired long term results.

4.2 Application of Diffusion of Innovations to Defining Market Effects and Impacts

A key argument in this document is that the effects of a program can be made more transparent and identified more systematically if one uses a theory to identify program outcomes and then designs the impact evaluation to identify and measure those outcomes. Figure 8 represents an adaptation of the diffusion of innovations model that was presented in Chapter 2 that can be used to link pro- gram outputs, program outcomes, and impacts (Reed and Jordan, 2005b; Reed, 2006b; Vine et. al., 2006).

Starting in the upper left portion, the target audience receives information through broadcast and contagion processes. As noted in our discussion of the theory, innovators and early adopters are more likely to get information through broadcast methods while the early and late majorities are more likely to get information through contagion processes. Dotted lines are used to remind us that the correlation between communication processes and adopter types is not perfect.

As a result of the communication, members of the target audience become aware of the program, its products and services, and the technologies and prac- tices the program is promoting. Some subset of the target audiences will find the information salient, and some of these may seek additional information or be sufficiently convinced that little additional information is needed in order for them to make a decision.

There is a dual information and persuasion process occurring. Members of the target audience may be seeking and evaluating information about the products

Actors may emulate an approach or idea but implement the idea outside of EERE’s frame- work.

information about the technologies and practices that the program is promoting. Thus, a member of the target audience may find a specific technology or practice compelling but may not be interested in the program or vice-versa.

Members of the target audience evaluate both the products and services and the technologies and practices for relative advantage, compatibility, and complex- ity. The opportunity to try and to observe the technologies or practices will influence their decisions as well.

Members of the target audience will decide whether or not to use the pro- gram’s products and services and the technology or practices the program is promoting. There are documented instances where contactors for efficiency programs have compared and updated their spreadsheets based on a tools devel- oped by EERE, such as the Steam System tool. They have adopted the knowl- edge but not the tool. If the evaluator measures whether the contractor uses the tool as opposed to the knowledge, the full impacts of the tool may go unrecog- nized.

As noted earlier, implementation of the decision often lags the decision. De- pending on the targeted market actor, the form of the implementation action can vary considerably. We have identified five underlying types of implementation actions:

1. Budgeting, funding, and/or contracting 2. Specifying and/or designing

3. Purchasing or acquiring

4. Changing operation or maintenance practices 5. Installing / using

These are generic types of action. For example, the targeted actor might: (1) arrange for capital to fund a project or enter into a contract; (2) establish the specification or design; (3) purchase or acquire a new technology; (4) change maintenance or operating practices; or (5) install and use a technology. Similarly, public entities might set a budget or fund an activity, establish legal requirements

or standards, establish administrative mechanisms, adjust operations, and then implement actions.

Frequently, there is a sequence of actions that flows from the decision to im- plement. A facility manager may recommend to a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) that a project be done, and the CFO may recommend to the Board of Directors that capital be set aside to fund the project. The Board of Directors may approve the capital request. Architects and engineers may be engaged to design the project, etc.

On the other hand, a facility engineer may be able to change maintenance practices or operational schedules immediately. A well thought out theory can be used to identify a plausible chain(s) of events.

Confirmation occurs after a project is implemented. Like implementation, confirmation can take many forms. It may range from the impressionistic (some- one casually glancing at an energy bill to confirm that the bill has gone down) to the formal (a rigorous metering and verification study with before and after metering and analysis to confirm that energy consumption has changed). A specific example of confirmation is the multifamily operator who, having in- stalled a new type of boiler, requests a savings-analysis to determine if he should install this new type of boiler at other multifamily locations that he owns.

People may not be very sophisticated about savings and mistake externally induced effects, such as the effects of changes to energy consumption due to changes in energy cost or temperature, as being indicative of the effects of im- plementing an action. For example, more than a few audit customers have concluded that an energy audit either worked or didn’t work in the months following the audit, because they saw their energy bills increase or decrease due to the weather or changes in the price of energy, rather than the effects of the measures installed.

Generally, there is a bias in the direction of perceiving positive results from having acted. For example, the project managers for a load management project

Implementation usually involves a sequence of actions with multiple actors over time.

People tend to see the impacts that they want or expect to see. Often the impacts are measurable but sometimes they are not.

For some deploy- ment programs, the replication, emulation, and sustainability effects are likely to be many times the direct effects. That is why identifying them is so impor- tant.

effect because the control equipment failed during the experiment. Mistaken perceptions can (and often do) reinforce or undermine the decision to implement a technology or practice.

As noted earlier, experiences with CFLs, cool roofs, and heat pumps led to a discontinuation or skepticism about the technologies among end-users. While some innovations have a less than illustrious history with respect to repeat pur- chases, other innovations find acceptance. For example, the ITDP has reported numerous instances where industrial facilities have used ITDP tools to examine a system in a facility and then repeated the use of the tool at the same or other facilities owned by the company.

It is the trying, the confirming, the replication, the emulation, and the sustain- ing of behaviors that are important. Unlike the innovators and early adopters, the early majority has less tolerance for “flaky” products. The early majority adopts by emulating their peers, and this is the key to widespread acceptance of a tech- nology. An innovation accepted by the early majority will diffuse to other end- users, manufacturers, retailers, consultants, builders, and households. The early majority take their cues from each other and receive information through word-of- mouth.

The rest of the model shown in Figure 8 focuses on sustained institutional change and is an extension of Rogers’ work.5 Sustainability is not a matter of just persuading more and more decision makers to adopt a technology or practice. It involves inducing long-lasting attitudinal, structural, and cultural change. If one is targeting commercial buildings, it is not sufficient to get a firm to adopt energy-efficient lighting technology when it builds new buildings or has tenant changes. Such a policy may change when the champion of the policy leaves her

5 _{The index in the Fifth Edition of Rogers’ book (Rogers 2003) lists just two pages on which the}

word “sustainability” is used. In one case, Rogers discusses how innovations may be “re-

invented” and that re-invention leads to faster adoption and a higher degree of sustainability. The idea of re-invention is that the innovation is not invariant but modified slightly in ways that might make it more acceptable. The other mention of sustainability occurs during a discussion of change agents and how change agents relate to target audiences. An innovation is more likely to be sustained if change agents are empathetic with their target audiences. Although Rogers was well aware of the importance of maintenance of the decision to adopt, he did not use the concept of sustainability.

or his position. Thus, the model for change anticipates a series of complementary changes, such as changes to standards and operating procedures, increased knowledge and advocacy, support for governmental changes to codes and stan- dards, improvements in the quality and reliability of products, reduced manufac- turing costs, and increased profits. As an example, evidence that a retail grocery firm has truly embraced the culture of energy efficiency might include hiring a full-time energy manager, establishing a corporate energy efficiency goal, tying part of the annual performance bonus of store managers and refrigerator techni- cians to improved energy efficiency, etc.