Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Innovation Diffusion Theory Review

& Scope in the Study of Adoption of
Smartphones in India
Tahir Wani

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T he Lag-User Met hod: Using laggards as a source of innovat ive ideas

Luis Filipe Lages, Sara Jahanmir

Diffusion of innovat ion: How t he use of video games can increase t he adopt ion of new t echnologies
Pablo Cano UCAM, Juan Francisco Hernández Pérez, Maria Concepción Parra Meroño, Sphera Publica

SMART PHONE ADOPT ION RESEARCH.docx

Toivo Laurence
 JOURNAL OF GENERAL MANAGEMENT
RESEARCH

Innovation Difusion heory

Review & Scope in the Study of Adoption of Smartphones in India

Tahir Ahmad Wani and Abstract

Syed Wajid Ali When mobile phones were introduced in the
world markets, little did one expect that these
Centre for Management Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia small handheld devices would transform the
E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] world as we knew it. his small innovation
transformed the lives of millions of people. A
simple device which was invented basically as a
vocal-communication tool got transformed into a
complex gadget that facilitates almost all forms of
communication now-a-days be it vocal, written or
multimedia. Mobile phones have metamorphosed
into smartphones which are far advanced than
their predecessors. hese smartphones are new
innovations in themselves as with each passing
day they come up with added features and uses
never thought of before. With markets being
looded by these smartphones it will be occupying
to study their difusion across global markets.
ISSN 2348-2869 Print Indian markets in particular have been swamped
© 2015 Symbiosis Centre for Management by millions of smartphones each month in the last
Studies, NOIDA
two years or so. his study is aimed to use the
Journal of General Management Research, Vol. 3,
Issue 2, July 2015, pp. 101–118.
framework of Innovation Difusion theory to

101
suggest a model for the analysis of adoption and internet it has become easy for users to check
ultimately the difusion of smartphones in India. the pros and cons of every new innovation
he innovation difusion theory in itself has before proceeding to adopt it. he innovation
developed immensely from the time of its origin difusion theory (IDT) has remained one of
(1962) till the present day. his paper will try the strong theories to predict the difusion of
to discuss some of the key elements of Innovation innovations in a social system. Smartphone
Difusion theory. is one such product that falls in the category
Keywords: Innovation Difusion theory of innovation that changes with passage of
(IDT), Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), time. Smartphones are becoming smarter
Smartphones, Indian Consumers. by each day. he addition of new features
in a way reinvents the use of this product.
his paper is a humble efort to present a
INTRODUCTION comprehensive review of the innovation

T he last few decades are known for the

technological happenings. he pace of
development of new technologies has led to
difusion theory (IDT) and then link it to the
difusion of smartphones in Indian consumer
market. India is making its way to become the
the development of innovative products. hese global leader in smartphone usage and with
technologies in themselves are innovations increasing internet penetration the sales of
and have led to many new inventions and smartphones have surged further. Given the
discoveries that were never thought before. cheap call rates and data packs the Indian
It took man hundreds of years from the consumers are slowly making a shift from
discovery of ire to the invention of wheel. tradition mobile phones to smartphones. he
he gap between innovations or innovative companies have started ofering smartphones
products was huge but with time, the gap at a price as below as Rs 2500 boosting the
became less and less. In today’s world we wake sales further. So one can conclude that the
up to a new innovation each morning. Be it a smartphone market in India will grow further
new invention or be it an innovative or new in the coming years making it an interesting
use of an old discovery or product. his rapid ield for academicians and practitioners to
generation of new ideas, products or services study the behaviour of Indian consumers
is good for a customer but equally diicult towards smartphones and their adoption as
and challenging for a producer or marketer. well as the difusion of this innovation.
An innovation or an innovative product
or service is useless and fruitless until it is
OBJECTIVES OF THE PAPER
properly difused to the inal user. Difusion
alone is not important, the new product or he innovation difusion theory (IDT) is a
services shall be adopted and acknowledged by very well established theory both in academics
the user for further difusion. With the rise of as well as in practice. It has been theoretically

102 Journal of General Management Research

and empirically tested in various ields of rather developments to an innovation i.e. a
human endeavour. he main objectives of mobile phone. But one should keep in mind
this research article are: the additional features that are added each
• To provide a comprehensive review of
quarter to these smartphones change the basics
of the use of such technologies. hese features
the innovation diffusion theory (IDT).
• To summarise the various components as video conferencing, cloud sharing, instant
add unexampled uses to mobile phones such

of the theory as well as the process of multi-media sharing, online purchasing etc.
diffusion. which no one had thought about doing with
• To provide an introductory summary on these small handheld devices which were
the smartphone market in India. meant for communicating with people over

• To suggest a model based on IDT manner they will surely it in the category
distances. If one sees smartphones in this

for studying the adoption as well as of innovations as deined in the theory of

diffusion of smartphones in India. innovation.

Literature Survey INNOVATION DIFFUSION

What is an innovation? Rogers (1983) has THEORY (IDT)
deined Innovation in his book titled “Difusion Introduced in1962, the Innovation Difusion
of Innovations” as ‘an idea, practice, or object heory was ine-tuned by Rogers (1995).
that is perceived as new by an individual Innovation difusion theory focuses on
or other unit of adoption.’ It matters little, understanding how, why and at what rate
so far as human behaviour is concerned, innovative ideas and technologies spread in a
whether or not an idea is “objectively” new social system (Rogers, 1962). In terms of the
as measured by the lapse of time since its theories of change, Innovation Difusion theory
irst use or discovery. he perceived newness takes a contrary approach to study changes.
of the idea for the individual determines his Instead of focusing on persuading individuals to
or her reaction to it. If the idea seems new change, it sees change as being primarily about
to the individual, it is an innovation. From the evolution or “reinvention” of products and
the above deinition it can be said that an behaviours so they become better fits for the
innovation needs not to be something new or needs of individuals and groups. In difusion of
recent in origin, rather it can be an erstwhile innovations, it is not people who change, but the
idea or object that a user perceives to have an innovations themselves (Les Robinson, 2009).
unexampled use. Smartphones, if brought On the other hand, difusion is the process by
into such family of objects, can be called an which an innovation is communicated through
innovation in itself. Yet some people may certain channels over time among the members
argue that smartphones are not innovations of a social system (Rogers, 2003). Fichman

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 103

(2000) deines difusion as the process by relationships” (Rogers, 2003). Tarde (1903)
which a technology spreads across a population conceptualized the patterned communication
of organizations. he concept of difusion of process as social imitation or the duplication of
innovations usually refers to the spread of ideas something new by members of a community,
from one society to another or from a focus or e.g., one observes the washing of hands and
institution within a society to other parts of that replicates the action.
society (Rogers, 1962). he whole theory of
Innovation Difusion can be divided into four
Time
main elements (Ismail Sahin, 2006).
he time aspect of the innovation difusion
process actually records adopter categorization
Innovations and rate of adoptions. It measures the clock
An idea, practice, or object that is perceived as from the moment of the creation of an
new by an individual or other unit of adoption innovation till it ceases to be one. It registers
(Rogers, 1983). It includes all sets of products the pace with which the innovation is difused
and services which are new or old but present into a society and adopted by diferent users.
an unexampled use for the user when he uses it
or simply when a user perceives it to be new in
Social System
terms of use, it becomes an innovation.
A set of interrelated units engaged in joint problem
solving to accomplish a common goal (Rogers, 2003).
Communication Systems An innovation is of no use unless it is accepted as
one by a social system. If a society fails to recognise
he communication system is a channel an innovation it ceases to be one. The diffusion of
through which users share the information innovation only takes place when a social system
with each other. It is a means that handles accepts it as an innovation and then shares information
the to and fro movement of the information about it within the system and with other systems.
between users. he better and faster a While analysing the social systems, Rogers
communication system, quicker the difusion (2003) classiied the people in the society
of Innovations. Rogers has classiied the into ive categories on the basis of their
communication systems into Mass Media and innovativeness. Innovativeness is the degree
Interpersonal channels. While mass media can to which an individual is relatively earlier in
disperse information more rapidly, Rogers adopting new ideas than other members of
believes that it is the interpersonal channel a system (Rogers, 2003). hese categories
that is more important for the difusion illustrate variability around the mean, when
of new innovations or technology. On the half of the target population has adopted an
other hand, “difusion is a very social process innovation (Kaasinen, 2005)
that involves interpersonal communication

104 Journal of General Management Research

Adopter Categorization well. Innovators are more like risk takers and
The Innovation Diffusion theory assists in are willing to test new technologies irst-hand.
understanding the user adoption of different hus, they should be prepared to cope with
innovations in target populations. Ryan and Gross unproitable and unsuccessful innovations
(1943) found ive types of adopters who adopt the and a certain level of uncertainty about the
technology/innovation in course of its diffusion
innovation (Ismail Sahin, 2006).
into the social system. These ive types of person
are differentiated from one another on the basis of Early adopters are opinion leaders who are
time dimension. The innovators are people readily the irst within their group to adopt, and are
willing to imbibe new ideas and products while as
laggards are sceptical about innovations. Rogers willing to maintain their position by evaluating
(1995) divided all the adopters into ive categories. innovations for the others (Kaasinen 2005).
Rogers went as far as assigning precise notional Compared to innovators, early adopters are
percentages for each segment. a. Innovators: 2.5% more limited with the boundaries of the social
b. Early Adopters: 13.5% c. Early majority: 34% d. system (Ismail Sahin, 2006). Early adopters
Late majority 34% e. Laggards 16%. However, the
“20:60:20 Rule” is a good all- purpose rule of thumb have a lagship role in the difusion process of a
(Les Robinson, 2009). new technology or an innovation. he success
and failure or the rate of further difusion
is directly dependent on the verdict of this
group. Leaders play a central role at virtually
every stage of the innovation process, from
initiation to implementation, particularly in
deploying the resources that carry innovation
forward (Light, 1998). hus this category of
adopters, even if less in number, are critical
Figure 1: Adopter Categorization (Rogers, 2003,) to decrease the levels of uncertainty prevailing
Innovators are venturesome risk-takers who around the adoption of an innovation. Early
serve as gatekeepers for those who follow adopters are vital for another reason. hey
(Kaasinen, 2005). he adoption as decision become an independent test bed, ironing out
process requires the potential adopter to the chinks and reinventing the innovation to
collect information regarding the technology, suit mainstream needs (Les Robinson, 2009).
examine the technology and consider whether his category has a more of an information
it provides suicient improvement to deserve carry over role to the other members of a social
the investment of energy and time that is system about the innovation. hey are the
needed to add it to his/her range of skills advisors of a social group about an innovation,
(Rogers, 2003). Innovators are quick to act to so their judgement goes a long way not only
a change and quick to adopt it. hey not only to decide the fate of an innovation but also
provide the time and efort but they furnish to determine the further rate of adoption by
timely information low for others to adopt as other users as well.

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 105

Early majority includes those users who and “endorsed by normal, respectable folks”
are more watchful and mooted to adopt (Les Robinson, 2009). Moore (1991) studied
an innovation. hey usually rely on the the categories in relation to the adoption
information provided by early adopters to use of technological products in business. His
a new technology or an innovation. Whilst indings suggest that the success or failure to
they take some time to decide on the usage of adopt a particular technology or an innovation
an innovation, they don’t wish to be the last is more critically dependent on the gap
ones to adopt the innovation. Early majorities between early adopters and early majority.
are pragmatists, comfortable with moderately Geoghegan (1994) went a step ahead to
progressive ideas, but won’t act without solid analyse and interpret the characteristics of
proof of benefits. hey are followers who are these two categories within the context of
influenced by mainstream fashions and wary higher education. His interpretation can be
of fads. hey want to hear “industry standard” summarised as:

Table 1: Characteristics of Early Adopters and Early Majority (Geoghegan, 1994)

Early Adopters Early Majority

 Technology focused  Not technically focused
 Proponents of revolutionary change  Proponents of evolutionary change
 Visionary Users  Pragmatic Users
 Project Oriented  Process Oriented
 Willing to take risks  Averse to taking risks
 Willing to experiment  Looking for proven applications
 Individually self-suficient  May require support
 Tend to communicate horizontally (focused  Tend to communicate vertically (focused within
across disciplines) a discipline)

Late Majority and Laggards—still more at first but eventually succumb to peer
traditional, often poorer, lower status pressure (Murray, 2009). he last to adopt are
individuals for whom peer pressure is required the laggards, who base their decisions on the
to motivate adoption (Rogers 1995). he past rather than the future. Rogers regrets the
Late Majority category adopts after the mean selection of the term “laggard” and emphasises
(average) part of the population has adopted, that it would be a mistake to imply that
their main characteristics being that they are laggards would be somehow at fault for being
sceptical and cautious (Gouws and George, late to adopt (Kaasinen, 2005). hey may be
2011). hese include sceptical users who prefer known as resistors to change. However they
to wait until most others have adopted the might have their own constraints to resist a
innovation (Kaasinen, 2005). Late Majority change e.g. the monetary problems associated
always doubts the adoption of an innovation with adoption of a new technology may

106 Journal of General Management Research

force them to opt for an innovation at its
dying stages. hey are purely cautious people
towards adoption of a new innovation. Some
of them are so worried that they stay awake
all night, tossing and turning, thinking up
arguments against it (Les Robinson, 2009).
Because of the limited resources and the lack Figure 2: Technology Adoption Lifecycle, “The Chasm”,
of awareness-knowledge of innovations, they (Moore, 1991)
irst want to make sure that an innovation
works before they adopt (Ismail Sahin, 2006).
Attributes of an Innovation
Despite their dissent towards innovations,
they may sometimes prompt the innovator in Regardless of the nature and characteristics
bettering the innovation itself. In that way one of people, the properties of an innovation
can say that they play a part in the difusion itself afect its rate of adoption in the society
and further development of innovations in a (O’Connor, 2007).Rogers and Shoemaker
social system. (1971) focused on the innovation as the
cardinal agent in difusion theory. Using
Moore (1991) extended Rogers’ work and
the attributes of innovation model to
argued that there exists a chasm between
explain the characteristics of an innovation
the early adopters of the innovation and the
may inluence acceptance or rejection of an
early majority Moore believed that these
innovation (Feder, Gershon and et.al, 1982).
two groups have very diferent expectations,
Barnett (1979) suggested that whether a
and he attempts to explore those diferences
person actually adopts or negates a particular
and suggest techniques to successfully cross
innovation is a decision arrived after a series of
the “chasm”. His research suggests that
thinking and thought making. Rogers (2003)
innovations that succeed among innovators
described the innovation-difusion process as
or early adopters may fail among the early
“an uncertainty reduction process” (p. 232),
majority or late majority, if the innovation
and he proposes attributes of innovations
lacks characteristics that appeal to these
that help to decrease uncertainty about the
groups (Kaasinen, 2005). Moore claims
innovation. Rogers and Shoemaker (1971)
that the chasm – the diferent needs of early
observed that ive attributes of an innovation
majority compared to early adopters – needs
are largely involved to inluence the adoption
to be bridged if an innovation is going to be
of an innovation; 1) relative advantage,
successful in the mass market. Moore describes
(2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trial-
the common delay that accompanies difusion
ability, and (5) observability. he individuals’
of an innovation, following an initial period
perceptions of these ive characteristics predict
of rapid uptake (Sunyoung, Mathiassen&
the rate of adoption of innovations (Rogers,
Michael, 2008).

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 107

2003). Rogers believed that these five qualities ideas and past experiences. It helps give
determine between 49 and 87 percent of the meaning to the new idea and regard it
variation in the adoption of new products (Les as more familiar(Francesco, 2012). The
Robinson, 2009). more compatible the innovation the
better chances of adoption. E.g. a irm
1. Relative Advantage: A simple yet a
which wants to introduce a new line of
powerful concept for diffusion of an
operations will ind it suitable to have a
innovation. It is common sense term
technology that doesn’t a much impact
that a person will only adopt a new
on the existing lines of operation. If
idea, a new product or a service if he
the new line will disrupt the existing
perceives it to be a better option that
operational lines it may increase the cost
the one in practice. If a user inds a new
involvement and the irm may scrap the
innovation more advantageous than the
deal. However one shall not blank out this
operational one he will be compelled to
possibility that two much compatibility
adopt to the new innovation. Thus more
can be sometimes a problem as the
advantageous the new innovation the
users may ind it unworthy to try a new
more quickly will it diffuse in a social
innovation or might not perceive it to be
system. The degree of relative advantage
an innovation.
is often expressed by a pot of sub
dimensions (economic proitability, low 3. Complexity: it is the degree to which
initial costs, decreases in discomfort, an innovation is perceived as relatively
social prestige, saving time and effort, dificult to understand and use (Roger,
immediacy of rewards)(Francesco, 2003). Opposite to other attributes
2012). The other elements of innovation this attribute has an inverse impact on
diffusion like communication channels the rate of adoption of an innovation.
are crucial to disperse the information To Rogers the simpler the innovation
about relative advantage of an innovation the greater the rate of adoption. This
over current practices and objects. The may not hold good in all situations as
faster and reliable the communication some high tech products are perceived
system the quicker the rate of diffusion more advantageous because of their
of an innovation. complexity but quite often the rule of
simplicity does help the diffusion of
2. Compatibility: is the extent to which
an innovation. E.g. It was reported that
adopting the innovation is compatible
farmers in the Sudan did not accept new
with what people do (Kaasinen, 2005).
irrigation practices instituted by the
It is the degree to which an innovation is
agricultural department be- cause the
perceived as consistent with consumer
use of those practices involved a great
needs, values and beliefs, previous
deal of direction and precision which

108 Journal of General Management Research

 were too dificult for the farmers to 5. Triability: It is the degree of examining
follow (Barnett, 1953). or testing a new innovation before
4. Observability: It is the easiness with actually adopting to it. Simple example
which the results of an innovation are of trainability is the test drive offers
not only visible but their communication by the automobile companies where
to the prospective users. Here again prospective customers can have a
communication systems play a crucial real life feel of the product before the
role, the more neatly a communication actual purchase. It gives the prospective
system is able to share the results of an users a sense of sureness to adopt to a
innovation the faster its rate of adoption. new innovation. Triability determines
E.g. companies launching new products whether a new innovation will be
often advertise the comments and adopted or rejected by the prospective
reviews of the customers who have users.
adopted/purchased their innovations. Tornatzky and Klein (1982 identiied
This creates a sense of assurance ive more attributes of an innovation.
among the potential users to adopt to hese included cost, communicability and
an innovation. Moore and Benbasat divisibility, proitability, and social approval.
(1991) found the observability construct It is argued that communicability is a
quite complex, so they divided the synonym of observability and divisibility is
construct into a result demonstrability proximate to Trialbility. Price and proit are
construct and a visibility construct. not always a key factor for adoption of an
While demonstrability means the ease innovation while social approval somewhat
of presentation of working and features is dependent on the previously discussed
of an innovation, visibility deines the attributes. Other researchers have extended
degree of exposure to public notice. Roger’s work (Barnesand Huf, 2003),
Result demonstrability is the tangibility suggesting additional factors for the model:
of the results of using the innovation, Image as the degree to which adoption and
including their Observability and use of the innovation is perceived to enhance
Communicability (Moore & Benbasat, one’s image or status. Trust as the extent to
1991).Visibility is the degree to which which the innovation adopter perceives the
others can see that an innovation is innovation provider to be trustworthy.
being used (Benham& Raymond,
1996). Both these constructs ultimately
STAGES OF ADOPTION
measure the degree of observability of
an innovation. O’Connor (2007) found An innovation takes some time to spread
that high visibility and demonstrability in a social system, it does not happen all
of internet services prompted more of a sudden. Whether a person actually
users to take up internet connections. adopts or negates a particular innovation is
HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 109
a decision arrived after a series of thinking • The trial stage: at this stage a person
and thought making (Barnett, 1979). Roger takes the innovation into experimental
and Shoemaker (1971) and Rogers and Beal use or applies it on a smaller scale.
(1957) had proposed ive stages though which • The adoption stage: At this stage the
an innovation passes before an individual innovation is taken into continual full
takes it into use:
• The awareness stage: at this stage an
scale use and is given a favourable
approval by the society members.
individual gets to know about the being Rogers (1983) however proposed an additional
of an innovation.
• The interest stage: at this stage the adoption which he called Innovation-Decision
and improved model for studying the stages of

individual starts collecting speciic data Process Model. Innovation-decision process

and information about the innovation. is essentially an information-seeking and
• The evaluation stage: at this stage the
information-processing activity in which the
individual is motivated to reduce uncertainty
individual ascertains or ixes the value
about the advantages and disadvantages of the
or worth of an innovation and decides
innovation (Rogers, 1983).
whether to try it or not.

Figure 3. A Model of Five Stages in the Innovation-Decision Process (Source: Diffusion of Innovations, Third Edition by
Everett M. Rogers, 1983, Pg-165)

110 Journal of General Management Research

INNOVATION-DECISION 2. he Persuasion Stage: Persuasion occurs
PROCESS when an individual (or other decision-
he innovation-decision process is the making unit) forms a favourable or
process through which an individual (or unfavourable attitude toward the
other decision-making unit) passes from irst innovation (Rogers, 1983). However
knowledge of an innovation to forming an Rogers argues that the positive or negative
attitude toward the innovation, to a decision attitude formation about the innovation
to adopt or reject, to implementation of the may not be directly involved in the decision
new idea, and to conirmation of this decision of adoption or rejection of an innovation.
(Rogers,1983). he ive steps identiied in the A person only forms an attitude about
process of Innovation-Decision are: a thing or idea only when he perceives
its existence. hus the persuasion stage
1. he Knowledge Stage: he irst step of correctly follows the knowledge stage.
an innovation-decision process begins In addition to that persuasion stage is
with the knowledge stage. In this stage more latent and but afective more like
the individual comes to know about the feeling centred while as knowledge stage
being of an innovation. he existence is cognitive and known. It is in this stage
of an innovation becomes known to a that the uncertainty revolving the use of
person through communication channels. an innovation may increase or decrease. A
he individual starts to ask questions wrong word of mouth or wrong publicity
like “What” “How and “Why” about may increase the levels of uncertainty while
the innovation. During this phase, a positive feedback from close friends or
the individual attempts to determine peers or family members will considerably
“what the innovation is and how and decrease the levels of uncertainty. Sherry
why it works” (Rogers, 2003). he (1997) reasons that individuals usually
questions posed by an individual cause trust information from close circle peers
three types of knowledge formation: and family members about an innovation
Awareness-knowledge: Awareness- and ilter the information coming from
knowledge represents the knowledge outside this circle.
of the innovation’s existence. How-to-
knowledge: he other type of knowledge, 3. he Decision Stage: Decision occurs when an
how-to-knowledge, contains information individual (or other decision-making unit)
about how to use an innovation correctly. engages in activities that lead to a choice
Principles-knowledge: he last knowledge to adopt or reject the innovation (Rogers,
type is principles-knowledge. his 1983).While adoption refers to “full use of
knowledge includes the functioning an innovation as the best course of action
principles describing how and why an available,” rejection means “not to adopt
innovation works (Ismail Sahin, 2006). an innovation” (Rogers, 2003). To Rogers

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 111

 if an innovation can be tested on a smaller can hamper the further adoption process
scale or trails can be more it enhances its of an innovation by the individual. It is
chances of adoption or acceptance by the because of these circumstances that the
individuals. he same may not hold good information low keeps on displacing
for all innovations. Rogers (1983) says from users to other people. Uncertainty
that in the decision stage the individual about the outcomes of the innovation
decides to adopt or reject the technology. still can be a problem at this stage. hus,
However the adoption or rejection may the implementer may need technical
not be permanent and the individual may assistance from change agents and others
later change his/her decision, so Rogers to reduce the degree of uncertainty
proposed four outcomes of this stage: about the consequences. Moreover, the
• Continued Adoption: An individual
innovation-decision process will end,
since “the innovation loses its distinctive
inds an innovation favourable and
quality as the separate identity of the new
adopts to it permanently.
• Later Adoption: An individual perceives
idea disappears” (Rogers, 2003).
5. he Conirmation Stage:
the innovation favourable and intends to
adopt to it in near future. The lag of time Human behaviour change is motivated in
may be because of monetary or other part by a state of internal disequilibrium
social issues. or dissonance, an uncomfortable state of
• Discontinuance: An individual adopts to
mind that the individual seeks to reduce
or eliminate (Rogers, 1983). According
an innovation but rejects it afterwards.
• Continued Rejection: The individual
to Rogers even after an adoption decision
is made about an innovation it is human
rejects the innovation from its outset and behaviour to seek information about the
continues to do so. innovation to feel motivated or to shred
4. he Implementation Stage: In this stage the of the innovation. Rogers (2003) argues
innovation is applied in daily use or one can that even after the decision of adoption is
say the innovation is put to practice. Until made it can be reversed if the individual is
the implementation stage, the innovation- “exposed to conlicting messages about the
decision process has been a strictly mental innovation. However, the individual tends
exercise. But implementation involves to stay away from these messages and seeks
overt behaviour change, as the new idea is supportive messages that conirm his or
actually put into practice (Rogers, 1983). her decision (Ismail Sahin, 2006). It is in
Implementation stage can prove to be a this stage that attitude of a person towards
diicult task for a user. he newness of an the innovation formed in persuasion stage
innovation and uncertainties prevailing play a huge role whether the person will
continually adopt of discontinue the

112 Journal of General Management Research

 adoption. he discontinuance that may idea in a speciied period. So rate of adoption
occur in this stage can be of two types: is a numerical indicant of the steepness
• Replacement Discontinuance: An of the adoption curve for an innovation
individual may discontinue the use and (Rogers, 1983). From the igure one can see
adopt to a better option or innovation that the rate of adoption is itself depended
available on various variables which start from an

• Disenchantment
individual and engulf the whole social system.
Discontinuance:
An individual rejects the innovation
because he/she feels unsatisied about
the innovation. The reason of non-
satisfaction may be that the innovation
doesn`t meet the requirements of the
user.
he Concept of Reinvention: deined as the
degree to which an innovation is changed
or modiied by a user in the process of its
adoption and implementation (Rogers,
1983). Reinvention generally takes place
in implementation stage .Invention is the
process by which a new idea is discovered or
created, while adoption is a decision to make
full use of an innovation as the best course of
action available. hus, adoption is the process
of adopting an existing idea. As innovations,
computers are the tools that consist of many
possible opportunities and applications, so Figure 3: Variables Determining the Rate of Adoption of
computer technologies are more open to Innovations, Rogers (1983)
reinvention (Ismail Sahin, 2006).
THE DIFFUSION OF AN
RATE OF ADOPTION OF AN INNOVATION:
INNOVATION
Rogers has separated the adoption process
Rate of adoption is the relative speed with from the difusion process the difusion
which an innovation is adopted by members process from the adoption process. While the
of a social system. It is generally measured as difusion process permeates through society
the number of individuals who adopt a new and groups, the adoption process is most

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 113

relevant to the individual (Couros, 2003). creep in. Goss (1979) noticed that the usage
Rogers (1995) deines the adoption process of this theory by scholars and practitioners
as “the mental process through which an in developing countries led to development
individual passes from irst hearing about an of various problems. Not only the adoption
innovation to inal adoption (As discussed pattern varied and the rate of adoption
above from knowledge to conirmation difered but sometimes farmers developed
stages). On the other hand the difusion negative attitudes about good innovations.
efect is the cumulatively increasing degree of he business community also raised its voices
inluence upon an individual to adopt or reject against the theory questioning the static nature
an innovation, resulting from the activation of categories of adopters. Anyone can be an
of peer networks about an innovation in a innovator if innovations are matched with
social system. organizations targeted for adoption (Downs
and Mohr, 1976). Brown (1981) pointed
out that carrying out of projects the theory
LIMITATIONS OF INNOVATION
require focusing monetary and personnel
DIFFUSION THEORY
resources on a small number of people, the
he concept of innovation difusion did category traditionally considered innovators.
not originate by studying any high-end He recommends using marketing techniques
technological product rather its origin can to target appropriate innovations to speciic
be traced from agricultural ields. It all segments of farmers .Gilfillan (1935) minted
started in1928 when researchers started to the term “Sailing Ship Efect” as a response
study the adoption patterns of farmers using of producers to produce ships using older
hybrid corn by the Iowa State Agricultural technology as against to the new innovations
Experiment Station. Between 1933 and in the shipping industry. He noted that in the
1939, the number of acres planted to hybrid maritime industry some market segments did
corn increased from hundreds to thousands. not replace sailing ships (the old technology)
By 1940, it had been adopted by most Iowa even after the emergence of steam ships (the
corn growers. (Ruttan, 1996). It was after new technology) in the nineteenth century,
that when Ryan and Gross (1943) introduced and diesel in the twentieth century. Lyytinen
the categorization of the adopters, in this case and Damsgaard (2001) found that an
the farmers. Rogers (1958) carried forward innovation needs not necessarily pass through
the work of his predecessors and in 1962 various stages of adoption for an individual
published his famous work “he Difusion of to adopt to it. Sometimes adoptions took
Innovations”. he irst and foremost criticism place in dyadic relationships and it became
that the theory faced was that it was more diicult to identify the stages of adoption.
agrarian in approach and would not hold good Further they found some of the Laggards
for innovations of other sectors. Even within being more visionary than the innovators
the agrarian scholars the criticism started to deined in the theory. Criticism has always

114 Journal of General Management Research

bettered innovations and theories and Rogers un-exampled uses never thought of. At current
always acknowledged criticism. He in his date markets are looded with smartphones
book (1962, 1983, 1995 & 2003) had given and the speciality is that every single month
special consideration to the criticism that was an innovation changes the shape of these
posed against the theory. One must admit the smartphones. It won’t be wrong to say that
fact that amidst all the criticism and literal smartphones are an evolving innovation that
battles against the theory, the difusion of keeps on evolving and after every addition it
innovations theory has been a great story in turns into a new innovation.
itself. housands of papers have been written
and many thousands of projects carried out
SMARTPHONES IN INDIAN
on the basis of this theory. One must not
MARKETS
forget the role this theory has in development
of the later theories of difusion or adoption As per the International Data Corporation
of technologies. (Dec, 2013) the Indian smartphone market
grew by 229% year over year in the third
quarter of 2013 (3Q13). A total of 12.8
SMARTPHONE-AN INNOVATION million smartphones were shipped alone in
Smartphones have tremendously evolved the third quarter of 2013. And the market
over the last few years. Smartphones when grew so fast that 35% of overall mobile phones
introduced were thought as mobile phones business in the country was made up by the
with additional capability of computing. It is smartphones, which is as far as nearly three
still deined in some books and dictionaries as times of its share in last quarter of 2013. hese
a hand-held computing mobile phone. But as igures in themselves are huge and project the
time has passed new features have been added global market share of India in smartphones.
to the smartphone and each of these features he smartphone business is booming in India
is an innovation in itself. A smartphone owing to the large proportion of population
has turned into a complex amalgam of in young age group. As such a study to analyse
innovations. hese innovations are making the buying behaviour of Indian consumers
the smartphone smarter by each passing day. towards smartphones is of great signiicance.
Smartphones have replaced watches, cameras, We will try to study the adoption process
calculators, hand held video games, music through which Indian consumer passes to
pods, internet cafes, posts and especially the actually adopt or reject a smartphone by
telephones. It an innovation that has replaced using the components of innovation difusion
all its predecessors as a one against many theory (IDT). Sutee and Jyoti (2012)
innovations. It has dispersed and difused undertook a similar kind of study to identify
across the globe on a mass scale, perhaps and explain how silver surfer owned micro
the fastest on such scale than any other enterprises adopt and use smartphones in
innovation. It has produced unparalleled and United Kingdom (UK). hey also proposed

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 115

a model by combining the Rogers’ Difusion goods. After a proper scale development, the
of Innovation heory (DOI) and the authors wish to use SEM technique to see the
Decomposed heory of Planned Behavior to feasibility and validity of the model.
study the same.
CONCLUSION
Proposed Model to study Smartphone he innovation difusion theory has been
adoption and ultimately the difusion in a pivotal theory in study of technology
Indian Markets difusion in the past two decades. Many
studies round the globe were done and will
be done with the incorporation of IDT. We
have also tried to incorporate the IDT for
possible study of the difusion of smartphones
in India. he model has been modiied with
additional constructs that will add to the
existing theory as well as help us understand
the difusion of smartphones in the consumer
market. he additional constructs of TAM
will make it a technology speciic study with
further addition of constructs like perceived
enjoyment and risk giving an insight of
consumer perception while considering the
purchase of smartphones. As Indian markets
are looded with smartphones, this study will
As the given igure indicates that the proposed
be an eye-opener to all the parties involved
model is an amalgam of heory of Innovation
like the companies, customers, researchers,
Difusion by Rogers and Technology
regulators, etc.
Adoption Model (TAM) of Davis (1985).
Additional constructs have been taken
to adjust the fact that TAM was actually REFERENCES
introduced for work related technological [1] O’Connor, B. (2007). Perceived attributes of
products not the products of direct consumer diffusion of innovation theory as predictors
use i.e. products of B2C market. We have thus of Internet adoption among the faculty
incorporated “Perceived Enjoyment” and members of Imam Mohammed Bin Saud
“Perceived Risk” as Motivator and Inhibitor University (Doctoral dissertation, University
constructs, respectively, in the market of of North Texas).
freewill purchase as done by various other [2] Couros, A. (2003). Innovation, change theory
researchers working on TAM for consumer and the acceptance of new technologies:

116 Journal of General Management Research

 A literature review. Unpublished [10] Francesco Travagli. (2012). Smartphone
literature review). Retrieved from http:// Buying Behaviour: The Chasm between Early
www. educationaltechnology. ca/couros/ and Late Adopters, Dissertation for degree
publication_iles/unpublishedpapers/change_ of Master of Science in Strategic Market
theory.pdf. Creation, Copenhagen Business School
[3] Barnes, S.J.and Huff, S.L. (2003). ‘Rising [11] Geoghegan, W. H. (1994). Whatever happened
Sun’: imode and the wireless internet. to instructional technology? Paper presented
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 46, No. at the 22nd Annual Conference of the
11,pp. 79–84. International Business Schools Computing
[4] Barnett, H. G. (1953). Innovation: The Basis of Association, Baltimore, MD. July 17-20
Cultural Change, New York: McGraw-Hill. [12] Gilillan, S.C. (1935), Inventing the Ship,
[5] Barnett, T. (1979). Why are bureaucrats slow Follett Publishing Co, Chicago, IL.
adopters? The case of water management in the [13] Goss, K. F. (1979). Consequences of diffusion
Gezira scheme. Sociologia Ruralis, 19(1), 60- of innovations to rural population. Rural
70. Sociology 44:754-772.
[6] Benham, H., & Raymond, B. (1996). [14] http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?container
Information technology adoption: Evidence Id=prIN24471213
from a voice mail introduction. Computer [15] Ismail Sahin, (2006).Detailed review of
Personnel, 17(1), 3-25.
[7] Christine E. Murray. (2009). Diffusion of
rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and
educational technology-related studies based
Innovation Theory: A Bridge for the Research– on Rogers’ theory,The Turkish Online Journal
Practice Gap in Counselling, 108 Journal of of Educational Technology –volume 5 Issue 2
Counselling & Development Winter 2009 Article 3
Volume 87 [16] Kaasinen, Eija, (2005). User acceptance of
[8] Davis, F. (1985). “A technology acceptance mobile services-value, ease of use, trust and
model for empirically testing new end-user ease of adoption. http://www.vtt.i/inf/pdf/
information systems: theory and results” publications/2005/P566.pdf
http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/15192 [17] Les Robinson, (2009). A summary of Diffusion of
[9] Downs, G., & Mohr, L. (1976). Conceptual Innovations, ChangeoLogy, the Book.
issues in the study of innovation. Administrative [18] Lyytinen, K; Damsgaard, J, (2001).What’s
Science Quarterly 21:700-714.
[] Feder, Gershon, Oniara and Gerald T. (1982).
Wrong with the Diffusion of Innovation Theory?
International federation for information
On Information and Innovation Diffusion-A processing -publications- iip; 173-190
Bayesian Approach.” American Journal of [19] Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the chasm:
Agricultural Economics, 64: 145-147.
[] Fichman, R.G. (2000).The Diffusion and
Marketing and selling technology products
to mainstream customers. New York: Harper
Assimilation of Information Technology Business.
Innovations,” in: Framing the Domains [20] Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991).
of IT Management: Projecting the Future Development of an instrument to measure
Through the Past, R.W. Zmud (ed.), Pinnalex the perceptions of adopting an information
Educational Resources, Cincinnati, OH.

HR Practices and Internal Corporate Social Responsibility 117

 technology innovation. Information Systems [30] Sherry, L. (1997). The boulder valley internet
Research, 2(3), 192-222. project: Lessons learned. THE (Technological
[21] Rogers E. M, Shoemaker and Floyd F, 1971. Horizons in Education) Journal, 25(2), 68-73.
Communication of Innovations. New York: The [31] Sunyoung Cho Lars, Mathiassen and Michael
Free Press, 1971 J. Gallivan. (2008). Crossing The Chasm:
[22] Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. From Adoption To Diffusion of a Telehealth
First edition. New York. Free Press. Innovation, Proceedings of IFIP 8.6 Working
[23] Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations.
Conference, Madrid, Spain October 2008.
Third edition. New York. Free Press [32] Sutee Pheeraphuttharangkoon and Jyoti
[24] Rogers, E. M. (1958). Categorizing the
Choudrie, (2012). Silver Surfers Adoption,
Use and Diffusion of Smartphones: An SME
adopters of agricultural practices. Rural
Perspective, System Management Research
Sociology 23:345-354.
[25] Rogers, E.M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations.
Unit (SyMRU), University of Hertfordshire
Business School Working Paper.
[33] Tarde, G. d., & Parsons, E. W. C. 1903. The
Fourth edition. New York. Free Press.
[26] Rogers, E.M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. laws of imitation. New York,: H. Holt and
Fifth edition. New York: Free Press.
[27] Rogers, E.M.; Beal, George, 1957-1958.
company
[34] Gouws, T., & Rheede van Oudtshoorn, G. P.
The Importance of Personal inluence in the (2011). Correlation between brand longevity
Adoption of Technological Changes. Social and the diffusion of innovations theory. Journal
Forces. 36:329-335
[28] Ruttan, V. (1996). What happened to
of Public Affairs,11(4), 236-242
[35] Tornatzky, L. G., & Klein, K. (1982).
technology adoption diffusion research? Innovation characteristics and innovation
Sociologia Ruralis 36:51-73.
[29] Ryan, B., & Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion
adoption-implementation: A meta-analysis of
indings. IEEE Transactions on engineering
of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa communities. management, (EM-29).
Rural Sociology, 8(1), 15-24.

118 Journal of General Management Research