IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v183y2022ics0040162522004152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Columbus' egg and the engineer's effect in forecasting solutions adoption

Author

Listed:
  • Trieste, Leopoldo
  • Geisler, Elie
  • Turchetti, Giuseppe

Abstract

Why is it that both complex and simple solutions that have proved to be effective have low rates of adoption? The literature on innovation (i.e., a specific category of solutions) management has provided some clues, identifying barriers of several types: organizational, technological, economic, human behavior and the nature of the innovation. We suggest that one reason is the misalignment between the degrees of complexity i.e., the degree of knowledge embedded, of the problem and its solution. A solution perceived to be too simple for a complex problem falls into the category of what might be called “Columbus' egg”. At the basis of this effect there is the tendency to minimize expected frustration as the difference between the effort made in looking for a solution and the obtained reward. When the solution is too complex for a simple problem, this is the case of the “Engineer's effect”. This effect has its cognitive underpinnings in the tendency to minimize decision-making costs. We discuss and illustrate these phenomena and propose some guidelines for technology developers and product innovation managers, as well as for forecasting solutions adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Trieste, Leopoldo & Geisler, Elie & Turchetti, Giuseppe, 2022. "Columbus' egg and the engineer's effect in forecasting solutions adoption," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:183:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522004152
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162522004152
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marieme Chouki & Mohamed Talea & Chafik Okar & Razane Chroqui, 2020. "Barriers to Information Technology Adoption Within Small and Medium Enterprises: A Systematic Literature Review," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-42, February.
    2. Viswanath Venkatesh, 2000. "Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 342-365, December.
    3. David Levhari, 1965. "A Nonsubstitution Theorem and Switching of Techniques," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 79(1), pages 98-105.
    4. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    5. Victoria S. Shelus & Simone C. Frank & Allison J. Lazard & Isabella C. A. Higgins & Marlyn Pulido & Ana Paula C. Richter & Sara M. Vandegrift & Rhyan N. Vereen & Kurt M. Ribisl & Marissa G. Hall, 2020. "Motivations and Barriers for the Use of Face Coverings during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Messaging Insights from Focus Groups," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-12, December.
    6. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    7. Fred D. Davis & Richard P. Bagozzi & Paul R. Warshaw, 1989. "User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(8), pages 982-1003, August.
    8. Fleming, Lee & Sorenson, Olav, 2001. "Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(7), pages 1019-1039, August.
    9. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 940-955, December.
    10. Mohr, Lawrence B., 1969. "Determinants of Innovation in Organizations," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(1), pages 111-126, March.
    11. Dosi, Giovanni, 1993. "Technological paradigms and technological trajectories : A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 102-103, April.
    12. Pierre-Alexandre Balland & David Rigby, 2017. "The Geography of Complex Knowledge," Economic Geography, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 93(1), pages 1-23, January.
    13. Brem, Alexander & Viardot, Eric & Nylund, Petra A., 2021. "Implications of the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak for innovation: Which technologies will improve our lives?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    14. Richard R Nelson & Alexander Peterhansl & Bhaven Sampat, 2004. "Why and how innovations get adopted: a tale of four models," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 13(5), pages 679-699, October.
    15. Tom Broekel, 2019. "Using structural diversity to measure the complexity of technologies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    16. Christensen, Clayton M. & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1995. "Explaining the attacker's advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 233-257, March.
    17. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    18. Taalbi, Josef, 2017. "What drives innovation? Evidence from economic history," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1437-1453.
    19. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 1980. "Intensity Measures of Consumer Preference," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 278-320, April.
    20. Christopher Scheubel & Philipp Bierschneider & Holger Gierse & Ralf Hermann & Michael Wokusch, 2018. "Valuing Product Lifecycle Management," Management for Professionals, in: Gunther Friedl & Horst J. Kayser (ed.), Valuing Corporate Innovation, pages 39-70, Springer.
    21. Itai Arieli & Yakov Babichenko & Ron Peretz & H. Peyton Young, 2020. "The Speed of Innovation Diffusion in Social Networks," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 88(2), pages 569-594, March.
    22. Gilbert, Richard J & Newbery, David M G, 1982. "Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 514-526, June.
    23. Kumar, Satish & Sahoo, Saumyaranjan & Lim, Weng Marc & Dana, Léo-Paul, 2022. "Religion as a social shaping force in entrepreneurship and business: Insights from a technology-empowered systematic literature review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    24. Giovanni Dosi, 2000. "Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation," Chapters, in: Innovation, Organization and Economic Dynamics, chapter 2, pages 63-114, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    25. Jahanmir, Sara F. & Cavadas, Joana, 2018. "Factors affecting late adoption of digital innovations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 337-343.
    26. Lee Fleming & Olav Sorenson, 2004. "Science as a map in technological search," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(8‐9), pages 909-928, August.
    27. Sumantra Ghoshal & Christopher A Bartlett, 1988. "Creation, Adoption and Diffusion of Innovations by Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 19(3), pages 365-388, September.
    28. Arieli, Itai & Babichenko, Yakov & Peretz, Ron & Young, H. Peyton, 2020. "The speed of innovation diffusion in social networks," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102538, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    29. Cobelli, Nicola & Cassia, Fabio & Burro, Roberto, 2021. "Factors affecting the choices of adoption/non-adoption of future technologies during coronavirus pandemic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    30. Bunea, Anita M. & Della Posta, Pompeo & Guidolin, Mariangela & Manfredi, Piero, 2020. "What do adoption patterns of solar panels observed so far tell about governments’ incentive? Insights from diffusion models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    31. Arkes, Hal R. & Blumer, Catherine, 1985. "The psychology of sunk cost," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 124-140, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mehdi Bensouda & Mimoun Benali, 2023. "From Fairly Good to Optimal Energy Efficiency Practices within the Moroccan Manufacturing Sector: Are Financial Resources Sufficient?," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 13(3), pages 478-488, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "Reprint of The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    2. Maxim Kotsemir & Alexander Abroskin & Dirk Meissner, 2013. "Innovation concepts and typology – an evolutionary discussion," HSE Working papers WP BRP 05/STI/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    3. Giovanni Dosi & Richard Nelson, 2013. "The Evolution of Technologies: An Assessment of the State-of-the-Art," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 3(1), pages 3-46, June.
    4. Mewes, Lars & Broekel, Tom, 2022. "Technological complexity and economic growth of regions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(8).
    5. Yan, Hong-Bin & Li, Ming, 2022. "Consumer demand based recombinant search for idea generation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    6. Dibiaggio, Ludovic & Nasiriyar, Maryam & Nesta, Lionel, 2014. "Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1582-1593.
    7. Nast, Carolin & Broekel, Tom & Entner, Doris, 2024. "Fueling the fire? How government support drives technological progress and complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    8. Ichiro Watanabe & Soichiro Takagi, 2022. "NK model-based analysis of technological trajectories: a study on the technological field of computer graphic processing systems," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 119-140, April.
    9. Wajeeha Aslam & Marija Ham & Imtiaz Arif, 2017. "Consumer Behavioral Intentions towards Mobile Payment Services: An Empirical Analysis in Pakistan," Tržište/Market, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb, vol. 29(2), pages 161-176.
    10. Dosi, Giovanni & Nelson, Richard R., 2010. "Technical Change and Industrial Dynamics as Evolutionary Processes," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 51-127, Elsevier.
    11. Martin, Xavier & Mitchell, Will, 1998. "The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(7-8), pages 753-771, April.
    12. Haque, Md Ziaul & Qian, Aimin & Hoque, Md Rakibul & Lucky, Suraiea Akter, 2022. "A unified framework for exploring the determinants of online social networks (OSNs) on institutional investors’ capital market investment decision," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    13. Sándor Juhász & Tom Broekel & Ron Boschma, 2021. "Explaining the dynamics of relatedness: The role of co‐location and complexity," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 100(1), pages 3-21, February.
    14. Ehrenfeld, Wilfried, 2012. "Towards a Theory of Climate Innovation - A Model Framework for Analyzing Drivers and Determinants," IWH Discussion Papers 1/2012, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    15. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/43aq8ffdqb82sbffkv69bt1eaa is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/43aq8ffdqb82sbffkv69bt1eaa is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Broekel, Tom & Diodato, Dario & Giuliani, Elisa & Hausmann, Ricardo & O'Clery, Neave & Rigby, David, 2022. "The new paradigm of economic complexity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    18. Cohen, Wesley M., 2010. "Fifty Years of Empirical Studies of Innovative Activity and Performance," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 129-213, Elsevier.
    19. Corradini, Carlo & De Propris, Lisa, 2017. "Beyond local search: Bridging platforms and inter-sectoral technological integration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 196-206.
    20. Balland, Pierre-Alexandre & Boschma, Ron, 2022. "Do scientific capabilities in specific domains matter for technological diversification in European regions?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    21. Lai, Kuei-Kuei & Chen, Yu-Long & Kumar, Vimal & Daim, Tugrul & Verma, Pratima & Kao, Fang-Chen & Liu, Ruirong, 2023. "Mapping technological trajectories and exploring knowledge sources: A case study of E-payment technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PB).
    22. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:183:y:2022:i:c:s0040162522004152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.