I'm doing research on the factors that affect future AI (Artificial Intelligence) adoption at the organizational level. We're studying the factors that might encourage or discourage AI adoption in organizations in the future since the technology has still not been adopted in the studied context. However, while TAM and TOE models seemed promising for the study, hesitation still prevails when it comes to integrating DOI theory (Diffusion of Innovation).
I came across a statement that DOI is mainly used in the attempt to understand the diffusion and the institutionalization of the innovation, rather than in the attempt to understand its potential adoption. Therefore, it is more suitable in a context where the innovation has already been adopted. But aren't innovators and early adopters part of DOI? Confusion prevails. If you could share with me your thoughts on this, I would be grateful. Thank you!
Take a look at [1] which gives a criticism of DOI. Criticisms to a theory usually supplements other source sin highlighting what the theory is not or its limitations. The first paragraph of section 3 nicely summaries DOI in a nutshell:
"adopter characteristics, the social network they belong to, the communication process, the characteristics of the promoters, and the innovation attributes including triability, relative advantage, compatibility, observability, and complexity
On the other hand take the TAM [2] page 24 states "Attitude toward using, in turn, is a function of two major beliefs: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. Perceived ease of use has a causal effect on perceived usefulness." these are hypothesised by Davies as "major determinant of whether or not he actually uses it". Note that DOI deals with user characteristics and technological attributes. These are very different from Davies attitudes.
TOE goes further and studies other variables [3] that are related to groups within organisations such as organizational readiness, management support.
Whether you include DOI in your work depends on the focus of your research. I am inclined based on your topic of AI to include DOI in terms of the adopter characteristics. I share Rogers view in that "NOT ALL INDIVIDUALS IN A SOCIAL SYSTEM adopt an innovation at the same time" [4, p. 241]. For example adopting AI systems that are just black boxes scares most traditional individuals. This lack of transparency will act as an adoption brake in my view of the late majority and laggards. As the hype level in Gartner's hype cycle [5] of particular AI technology diminishes the peak adoption of the early majority will be reached. This is easier to canalise with the DOI and supplementing it with TOE at the success rate of the organizational level (lack of readiness to adopt AI, stumbling blocks in integration to obtain data for the AI, expensive personnel to manage the AI implementation, etc.) and the TAM's user perspective.
To your particular question of innovators check [4, p247] "innovators and early adopters could be combined into a single class to achieve symmetry, but their quite different characteristics mark them as two distinct categories". By being Innovators they introduce the technology to market but that does not necessarily make them users. Alternatively, they can simply be bundled with them since their impact on the tail of the distribution is that they will stretch the tail to the time they introduce the product and mark the beginning of the distribution tail (not necessarily when the first user adopts the system).
Hope this helps
References
[1]Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2001, April). What’s wrong with the diffusion of innovation theory?. In Working conference on diffusing software product and process innovations (pp. 173-190). Springer, Boston, MA. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-0-387-35404-0_11.pdf
[2] Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Available at: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/15192/14927137-MIT.pdf
[3] Abed, S. S. (2020). Social commerce adoption using TOE framework: An empirical investigation of Saudi Arabian SMEs. International Journal of Information Management, 53, 102118. Available at: https://fardapaper.ir/mohavaha/uploads/2020/08/Fardapaper-Social-commerce-adoption-using-TOE-framework-An-empirical-investigation-of-Saudi-Arabian-SMEs.pdf
[4] Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of innovations 3rd ed
[5] Linden, A., & Fenn, J. (2003). Understanding Gartner’s hype cycles. Strategic Analysis Report Nº R-20-1971. Gartner, Inc, 88, 1423. available at: http://ask-force.org/web/Discourse/Linden-HypeCycle-2003.pdf
Arturo Geigel your answer is of great help. Thank you for taking the time to explain it so well. I will make sure to read the references for further insight.
Have a deep look at https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48918726/Modelling_and_forecasting_the_diffusion_20160917-3971-1o9mwo0-with-cover-page-v2.pdf?Expires=1647181679&Signature=cYi06N0zQ624eGcegDWIUlm6JmQUa79vqL31rMaP6djZAFRqEAXmGFEqKInC0~nCSt11lkpkxcs8gDPCiDaE6lnUt3p7ezYlf70zj4FfRAVc9JaPRqESDSluDpbG3creFO~j7hgPjEC2IPq3~DOmPSFvTeaCev1uaKt20JjtxPupy3wcaZlw983bTpc1Q9tnBrpoqd9Hzuqwam2ggZnHOcm1D9ueQwNRnn7cf66-Tf6gPeQs~V~0X8Wae6DQMI9sx1VCK-khmE18zjedpKUd3Lq6ThvnkVC1p9SyPC3JeLP~K-ONuAW8IbjXKamGeSctgSXeHaQTycsGM3ZDlw-x6g__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA
and Article Diffusion Of Innovations Theory, Principles, And Practice
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Filing