User:Djl37/sandbox

Case study: Diffusion of business computing in organizations
To illustrate how different diffusion mechanisms can have varying effects in individual cases, consider the example of business computing. The 1980s and 1990s saw a rapid paradigm shift in the way many organizations operated; specifically, the rise of computers and related technologies saw organizations adopt these innovations to help run their business (Attewell, 1992). As such, the diffusion of business computing through organizations during this time period provides an informative case study through which to examine different mechanisms of diffusion and their respective roles.

Networks
The roles of communication networks, as described by traditional theories of diffusion, have been to facilitate information flow about a new innovation and thus remove one of the major barriers to adoption. In this model, those closest to the initial champions of a new innovation are quicker to respond and adopt, while those farther away will take more time to respond (Rogers, 1983) (Strang and Soule, 1998). This theory about the roles of networks in diffusion, while widely applicable, requires modification in certain cases. The diffusion of business computing in organizations is among them. Attewell argues that in this case, knowledge of the existence of computers and their business applications far preceded their eventual adoption. The main barrier to adoption was not awareness but rather technical knowledge of how to effectively integrate computing into the workplace. Thus, the most relevant networks to the diffusion of business computing were those networks that transmitted the technical knowledge required to utilize the innovation, not those that simply transmitted awareness of the idea behind the innovation.

Institutions
Institutional environments also played an important role in the diffusion of business computing. In order to adapt to evolving trends in business computing, organizations first needed to gain the technical knowledge necessary to operate the technology (Attewell). The “knowledge barrier” could be reduced or partially circumvented, however, by the formation of new institutions. The new institutions that formed during this time period – such as service bureaus, consultants, and simplifications of the technology – lowered the knowledge barrier and allow for more rapid diffusion of the ideas and technology behind business computing. This explains the phenomenon in which, at first, many organizations obtained business computing as a service. However, after these service institutions effectively lowered the barrier to adoption, many organizations became capable of bringing business computing in-house (Attewell)

Innovation decisions
Rogers (2005) notes two important ways in which innovations are adopted by organizations: collective innovation decisions and authority innovation decisions. Collective innovation decisions are best defined as a decision that occurs as the result of a broad consensus for change within an organization. Authority innovation decisions, on the other hand, need only the consensus of a few individuals with large amounts of power within the organization. In the case of organizations adopting business computing, authority decisions were largely impossible. As J.D. Eveland and L. Tornatzky (1990) explain, when dealing with advanced technical systems such as those involved with business computing, “decisions are often many (and reversed), and technologies are often too big and complex to be grasped by a single person's cognitive power-or usually, to be acquired or deployed  within the  discretionary authority of  any single  organizational participant." As such, a much broader consensus within an organization was required to reach the critical mass of technical knowledge and authority necessary to adapt to business computing. This provided an opportunity for collective innovation decisions within the organization.