1. ESTADO DEL CONOCIMIENTO
1.1 TRANSPORTE DE SEDIMENTOS: HISTORIA Y EVOLUCIÓN
Rogers (2003) identified four main elements identifiable in the diffusion process: innovation, communication, time, and the social system.
2.5.1 Innovation
Greenhalgh et al. (2005) defined innovation in health service delivery as a “novel set of behaviours, routines and ways of working, which are directed at improving health outcomes, administration efficiency, cost-effectiveness or the user experience, and which are implemented through planned and coordinated action” (p.20). The authors recognised that this definition is not perfect as it implies the innovation is an event rather than a process of continuous change. The intent of any innovative course of action is to discontinue previous practice through increasing administrative efficiency, being more cost effective, improving the user’s experience, or improving outcomes (Greenhalgh et al., 2005).
The perceived newness of the idea for an individual determines their reaction to it (Rogers, 2003). The innovation may have been known to a person for some time, but they had not yet developed a favourable or unfavourable attitude. The “newness of an innovation may be expressed in terms of knowledge, persuasion, or a decision to adopt” (Rogers, 2003, p.12). Olatokun and Igbinedion (2009) labelled this as an attitude construct or the degree to which a person has a favourable or unfavourable appraisal of an innovation.
Not all innovations are equivalent units of analysis (Rogers, 2003). Instead, Rogers (2003) offered the following five characteristics of an innovation that are the most important in explaining the different rates of adoption: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Individual
perceptions of innovations with greater relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, observability and with less complexity are more likely to be adopted. Relative advantage is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea it superseded. The greater the perceived relative advantage of an innovation, the more rapid the adoption rate will be. However, relative advantage on its own does not guarantee widespread adoption (Greenhalgh et al., 2004; Rogers, 2003).
Compatibility refers to the measure of which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the existing values, past experiences and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). Innovations that are compatible with the values and norms of a social system are more likely to be adopted than innovations that are incompatible. Complexity on the other hand, is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use (Rogers, 2003). Members of a social system comprehend some innovations as being more complicated and therefore adopt them more slowly. Practical experience, demonstration and/or when an innovation is broken down into more manageable parts can reduce perceived complexity (Greenhalgh et al., 2004).
The term trialability is used when an innovation is modified and experimented with. When an innovation is trialled it represents less uncertainty to the individual who is considering it for adoption. Alternatively, observability is the extent to which results of an innovation are visible to others. The easier it is for an individual to see the results of an innovation, the more likely it will be adopted (Rogers, 2003).
Reinvention was eventually added to the list of characteristics (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). Initially it was assumed that an innovation “was an invariant quality that did not change as it diffused” (Rogers, 2003, p.17). Rogers (2003) defined reinvention as the degree to which the user changes or modifies an innovation. Reinvention increases the likelihood that the innovation will be adopted more easily. Some innovations, such as corn seed cannot be reinvented, whereas others, such as the Primary Health Care Strategy, are more flexible in nature.
Other attributes have been added to the list of characteristics that support or impede adoption. These include fuzzy boundaries, risk, task issues, the knowledge required to use the innovation and augmentation or support (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Complex innovations in service organisations have what Greenhalgh et al. (2004, 2005) termed “fuzzy boundaries”. They are made up of a hard core, or the irreducible elements of the innovation itself. There is also a soft periphery, or the organisational structures and systems required for the implementation of the innovation. The soft periphery links with the aforementioned concept of reinvention. “System fit” is an important feature which signals an innovation is ready to be adopted.
There is an amount of risk or uncertainty in adopting an innovation. If the individual identifies the risk as high, it is less likely that the innovation will be adopted (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Additionally, if an innovation improves task performance it also increases the chance of adoption. Task issues are those with relevance to a person’s work. When an innovation can be codified and transferred from one context to another, then the innovation will be adopted more easily. Greenhalgh et al. (2004) identified this as the knowledge required to use the innovation. Augmentation includes the notion that an innovation will be adopted more easily if support such as training is provided.
2.5.2 Communication
Communication must take place if the innovation is to spread. Diffusion is a particular type of communication in which the message content that is exchanged is concerned with new ideas and is spread to the members of a social system (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion focuses on bringing about overt behaviour change in the adoption or rejection of a new idea as opposed to changing attitudes. As discussed earlier, in its most elementary form the diffusion or communication process involves:
1. An innovation
2. An individual or unit of adoption that has the knowledge or experience in using that adoption
4. A communication channel connecting the two units (Rogers, 2003).
Sanson-Fisher (2004) suggested that diffusion communication is usually more effective when there is a high degree of professional resemblance between those people attempting to introduce the innovation and the recipient. For example, doctors introducing an innovation to other doctors. The different conceptual and theoretical bases for the spread of innovation in service based organisations are illustrated in Figure 4.
Defining Features Unpredictable Un-programmed Uncertain Emergent Adaptive Self-organising Negotiated Influenced Enabled Scientific Orderly Planned Regulated Programmed
Systems “properly managed”
Assumed Mechanism Natural Emergent Social Technical Managerial
Metaphor for Spread
Emergence adaptation
Knowledge construction/ making sense
Diffusion Negotiation Knowledge transfer
Dissemination Re- engineer/ cascade
Figure 4. Different conceptual and theoretical bases for the spread of
Innovation in service organisations (Source: Greenhalgh et al., 2004, p.593).
The factors that influence the spread of communication are on a continuum between pure diffusion and active dissemination (Greenhalgh et al., 2004). Greenhalgh et al. (2005) defined pure diffusion as the spread of an innovation that is usually peer mediated, unplanned, informal, and decentralised. Alternatively, active dissemination is planned, formal, centralised and most likely to occur through vertical hierarchical structures. In other words letting it happen, helping it happen, or making it happen. The results are determined by the effort put into the dissemination process.
2.5.3 Time
One of the strengths of diffusion research is the measurement of time (Rogers, 2003). Diffusion scholars recognised that an individual’s decision about an innovation is not an instantaneous act but that it is a process that occurs over time and consists of a series of different actions. The time dimension involved in the diffusion process can involve three components:
a. The innovation decision process b. Innovativeness
c. An innovation’s rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003).
a. The innovation decision process
This is the process through which an individual passes from receiving their first knowledge of an innovation to the formation of an attitude as to whether to adopt or reject the use of a new idea through to the acceptance of the innovation. Rogers (2003) conceptualised these processes in five phases: the knowledge, the persuasion, the decision, the implementation and the confirmation.
The knowledge phase occurs when an individual/unit is exposed to an innovation and gains an understanding of how it functions. Within the knowledge phase there are three types of knowledge: “awareness” knowledge, “how to knowledge” and “principles” knowledge (Rogers, 2003). The persuasion phase is attitude formation and change on the part of an individual/unit, as opposed to communication with the intent to induce attitude change. In this phase people seek innovation evaluation information that might reduce some of the uncertainty about expected outcomes. The decision phase takes place when an individual/unit engages in activities that lead to the adoption or rejection of the innovation. Rejection can be either active or passive and represents quite different types of behaviour. Rogers (2003) states it is active when an individual considers using the innovation but then decides not to use it, or passive when they did not consider using it in the first place.
The implementation phase occurs when an individual/unit puts a new idea into practice. Confirmation then eventuates when an individual/unit seeks reinforcement of an innovation-decision already made. When the benefits of the innovation are recognised, it is integrated into on-going routine as well as being promoted to others (Rogers, 2003). The five stages in the information decision process are illustrated in Figure 5.
Communication channels
Adoption Continued adoption Later adoption Discontinuance Rejection Continued rejectionFigure 5. A model of five stages in the information decision process
(Source: Rogers, 2003, p.170).
b. Innovativeness
Not all individuals or organisations adopt an innovation at the same time. Greenhalgh et al. (2005) identified determinants of organisational innovativeness or system antecedents rather than individual innovativeness. The authors include the size of the organisation, structural complexity, leadership, receptive context for change and initiatives to enable and support
Prior conditions
1. Previous practice 2. Felt needs/problems 3. Innovativeness 4. Norms of the Social system
Knowledge Persuasion Decision Implementatio Confirmation
Perceived characteristics of innovation 1. Relative advantage 2. Compatibility 3. Complexity 4, Trialability 5, Observability Characteristics of the decision making unit 1. Socioeconomic 2. Personality 3. Communication behaviour