IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v10y1999i3p255-275.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps

Author

Listed:
  • Robert G. Fichman

    (Wallace E. Carroll School of Management, Boston College, 354D Fulton Hall, 140 Commonwealth Avenue, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02167-3808)

  • Chris F. Kemerer

    (University of Pittsburgh, 278a Mervis Hall, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15260)

Abstract

Innovation researchers have known for sometime that a new information technology may be widely acquired, but then only sparsely deployed among acquiring firms. When this happens, the observed pattern of cumulative adoptions will vary depending on which event in the assimilation process (i.e., acquisition or deployment) is treated as the adoption event. Instead of mirroring one another, a widening gap—termed here an assimilation gap —will exist between the cumulative adoption curves associated with the alternatively conceived adoption events. When a pronounced assimilation gap exists, the common practice of using cumulative purchases or acquisitions as the basis for diffusion modeling can present an illusory picture of the diffusion process—leading to potentially erroneous judgments about the robustness of the diffusion process already observed, and of the technology's future prospects. Researchers may draw inappropriate theoretical inferences about the forces driving diffusion. Practitioners may commit to a technology based on a belief that pervasive adoption is inevitable, when it is not.This study introduces the assimilation gap concept, and develops a general operational measure derived from the difference between the cumulative acquisition and deployment patterns. It describes how two characteristics— increasing returns to adoption and knowledge barriers impeding adoption—separately and in combination may serve to predispose a technology to exhibit a pronounced gap. It develops techniques for measuring assimilation gaps, for establishing whether two gaps are significantly different from each other, and for establishing whether a particular gap is absolutely large enough to be of substantive interest. Finally, it demonstrates these techniques in an analysis of adoption data for three prominent innovations in software process technology—relational database management systems (RDBs), general purpose fourth generation languages (4GLs), and computer aided software engineering tools (CASE). The analysis confirmed that assimilation gaps can be sensibly measured, and that their measured size is largely consistent with a priori expectations and recent research results. A very pronounced gap was found for CASE, while more moderate—though still significant—gaps were found for RDBs and 4GLs.These results have the immediate implication that, where the possibility of a substantial assimilation gap exists, the time of deployment should be captured instead of, or in addition to, time of acquisition as the basis for diffusion modeling. More generally, the results suggest that observers be guarded about concluding, based on sales data, that an innovation is destined to become widely used. In addition, by providing the ability to analyze and compare assimilation gaps, this study provides an analytic foundation for future research on why assimilation gaps occur, and what might be done to reduce them.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert G. Fichman & Chris F. Kemerer, 1999. "The Illusory Diffusion of Innovation: An Examination of Assimilation Gaps," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 10(3), pages 255-275, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:10:y:1999:i:3:p:255-275
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.10.3.255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.10.3.255
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.10.3.255?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Orlikowski, Wanda J. (Wanda Janina), 1993. "CASE tools as organizational change : investigating incremental and radical changes in systems development," Working papers WP 3579-93., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    2. Edwin Mansfield, 1993. "The Diffusion of Flexible Manufacturing Systems in Japan, Europe and the United States," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 149-159, February.
    3. Eric von Hippel, 1994. ""Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving: Implications for Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 40(4), pages 429-439, April.
    4. Giovanni Dosi & Christopher Freeman & Richard Nelson & Gerarld Silverberg & Luc Soete (ed.), 1988. "Technical Change and Economic Theory," LEM Book Series, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy, number dosietal-1988, November.
    5. James C. Brancheau & James C. Wetherbe, 1990. "The Adoption of Spreadsheet Software: Testing Innovation Diffusion Theory in the Context of End-User Computing," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 1(2), pages 115-143, June.
    6. Robert G. Fichman & Chris F. Kemerer, 1997. "The Assimilation of Software Process Innovations: An Organizational Learning Perspective," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(10), pages 1345-1363, October.
    7. Frank M. Bass, 1969. "A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(5), pages 215-227, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Robert G. Fichman, 2004. "Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 132-154, June.
    2. van Everdingen, Y.M. & Wierenga, B., 2001. "Intra-Firm Adoption Decisions," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2001-21-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    3. Colin Wessendorf & Alexander Kopka & Dirk Fornahl, 2021. "The impact of the six European Key Enabling Technologies (KETs) on regional knowledge creation," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2127, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Sep 2021.
    4. Denis Dennehy & Kieran Conboy & Jaganath Babu, 2023. "Adopting Learning Analytics to Inform Postgraduate Curriculum Design: Recommendations and Research Agenda," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 1315-1331, August.
    5. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    6. Fagerberg, Jan, 2018. "Mobilizing innovation for sustainability transitions: A comment on transformative innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(9), pages 1568-1576.
    7. Peters, Kay & Albers, Sönke & Kumar, V., 2008. "Is there more to international Diffusion than Culture? An investigation on the Role of Marketing and Industry Variables," EconStor Preprints 27678, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    8. Patrick Ronde & Caroline Hussler, 2003. "The role of competences on patenting activities of learning regions : an empirical study on French data," ERSA conference papers ersa03p309, European Regional Science Association.
    9. Ina Drejer & Anker Lund Vinding, 2005. "Location and collaboration: Manufacturing firms' use of knowledge intensive services in product innovation," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(6), pages 879-898, September.
    10. Cuellar, Michael J. & Gallivan, Michael J., 2006. "A framework for ex ante project risk assessment based on absorptive capacity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 1123-1138, September.
    11. Frambach, Ruud T. & Schillewaert, Niels, 2002. "Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 163-176, February.
    12. Bo-Seong Yun & Sang-Gun Lee & Yaichi Aoshima, 2019. "An analysis of the trilemma phenomenon for Apple iPhone and Samsung Galaxy," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 13(4), pages 779-812, December.
    13. Russell L. Purvis & V. Sambamurthy & Robert W. Zmud, 2001. "The Assimilation of Knowledge Platforms in Organizations: An Empirical Investigation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(2), pages 117-135, April.
    14. Stephan Manning & Silvia Massini & Carine Peeters & Arie Y. Lewin, 2018. "The changing rationale for governance choices: Early vs. late adopters of global services sourcing," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(8), pages 2303-2334, August.
    15. Bin Zhang & Paul A. Pavlou & Ramayya Krishnan, 2018. "On Direct vs. Indirect Peer Influence in Large Social Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 292-314, June.
    16. Michael P. Schlaile & Johannes Zeman & Matthias Mueller, 2021. "It’s a Match! Simulating Compatibility-based Learning in a Network of Networks," Economic Complexity and Evolution, in: Michael P. Schlaile (ed.), Memetics and Evolutionary Economics, chapter 0, pages 99-140, Springer.
    17. Rajiv D. Banker & Robert J. Kauffman, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: The Evolution of Research on Information Systems: A Fiftieth-Year Survey of the Literature in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(3), pages 281-298, March.
    18. Roberto Vona & Nadia Di Paola, 2013. "Management dell?innovazione in agricoltura e relazioni di canale in una prospettiva teorica "grounded"," MERCATI & COMPETITIVIT?, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(4), pages 83-102.
    19. Miralles, Francesc & Sieber, Sandra & Valor, Josep, 2005. "CIO herds and user gangs in the adoption of open source software," IESE Research Papers D/595, IESE Business School.
    20. Torben Klarl, 2014. "Knowledge diffusion and knowledge transfer revisited: two sides of the medal," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 737-760, September.

    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:inm:orisre:v:10:y:1999:i:3:p:255-275. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.