learning and technology adoption: a structural and behavioral analysis brent zenobia department of...
TRANSCRIPT
Learning and Technology Adoption:A Structural and Behavioral Analysis
Brent Zenobia Department of Engineering and Technology Management
Portland State [email protected]
Charles WeberDepartment of Engineering and Technology Management
Portland State [email protected]
AbstractWhat is the relationship between learning and technology adoption? A case study of alternative transit mode choice suggests that adoption is a family of three learning processes which includes technology selection, evaluation, and maintenance. Structural and behavioral analysis is applied to uncover the properties, dimensions, and dynamic behavior of these processes. Technology evaluation and selection are cognitively distinct mental processes with different information requirements.
Adoption as a Learning Process
• Adoption is learning about toolsAdoption is learning about tools– Tool use sets us apart from most other primates
– Baboons live in social groups – but they don’t use tools,have language, or possess a ‘theory of mind’
– Social life drove the evolution of the primate brain toa certain point, then tool use took over and spurredtool use took over and spurredthe development of language.the development of language. This rewired the humanbrain in important ways (Cheney & Seyfarth, 2007)
– Thus, learning about tools is even more fundamental to human learning about tools is even more fundamental to human cognition than language.cognition than language.
• Adoption is also useful as a substantive domain to study learningAdoption is also useful as a substantive domain to study learning– Theories of learning that are difficult to test in organizational settings
may reveal themselves in high-involvement adoption situations
– Such studies will have the character of basic researchbasic research
The Current State of Adoption Theory
Theoretical progress has stagnatedTheoretical progress has stagnated“…the growth of appropriate theory is at an apparent standstill.” (Katz, 1999, pg. 145)
“…a kind of sameness...stereotyped approaches.” (Rogers, 2003, pg. 40)A reified concept without behavioral referents (Eveland, 1979, pg. 5)
Theoretical progress has stagnatedTheoretical progress has stagnated“…the growth of appropriate theory is at an apparent standstill.” (Katz, 1999, pg. 145)
“…a kind of sameness...stereotyped approaches.” (Rogers, 2003, pg. 40)A reified concept without behavioral referents (Eveland, 1979, pg. 5)
and yet, Rogers himself said this model is wrong. The supporting evidence is thin, the model is 50 years old, and the stages it predicts often occur out of order or else are skipped entirely. Rogers pleaded for decades for someone to apply qualitative process research methods (as opposed to surveys) to construct a better model of technology adoption. No causal, empirically derived theory of adoption yet exists.
The Rogers Adoption Model
By far the most widely cited adoption model…
OUTDA
TED
OUTDA
TED
Source: Rogers (2003)
Research Objective
• Why simulated consumer agents?• Because agent-based social simulation is the keyagent-based social simulation is the key
to reviving theoretical progressto reviving theoretical progress in adoption research– Forces parsimony and conceptual clarity
– Permits controlled experimentation
– Enables falsification of hypotheses & elimination of weak theory
To construct a theory of thetechnology adoption processtechnology adoption process
that is suitable for implementation in simulated consumer agents.
To construct a theory of thetechnology adoption processtechnology adoption process
that is suitable for implementation in simulated consumer agents.
Source: Goldspink (2002); Andrews, Baptista and Patton (2005)
Research Setting
Alternatives to single Alternatives to single occupancy vehicles:occupancy vehicles:
Bicycles
Buses
Light rail
Car sharing
Car pooling
The structuralstructural and behavioralbehavioral aspects of individual adoption are more easily brought out into the open
in high-involvement decision settings like commuting
The structuralstructural and behavioralbehavioral aspects of individual adoption are more easily brought out into the open
in high-involvement decision settings like commuting
Process has Structure and Behavior
Structure = key concepts & static relationships– Requires sampling a wide variety of outcomes– Therefore, outcomes must be known in advanceoutcomes must be known in advance – Retrospective data is needed
Behavior = patterns in the sequence of events– Requires watching the process as it unfolds– Therefore, outcomes cannot be known in advanceoutcomes cannot be known in advance – Longitudinal data is needed
Sources: Morse (1991); Morgan (1998); Van de Ven and Huber (1990); Leonard-Barton (1990)
Two-stage complementary assistance designCase 1: STRUCTURESTRUCTURE +
behavior
Case 2: structure + BEHAVIORBEHAVIOR
Two-stage complementary assistance designCase 1: STRUCTURESTRUCTURE +
behavior
Case 2: structure + BEHAVIORBEHAVIOR
Two-Case Design
Novice Winter Bike Commuters• Emphasis on behavioral behavioral analysis
(Miles and Huberman, 1994)• LongitudinalLongitudinal data collection• 28 interviews + other evidence
Outputs: Relationship diagrams; decision diagrams; sequence diagrams; UML modelOutputs: Relationship diagrams; decision diagrams; sequence diagrams; UML model
‘Passport Plus’ Transit Pass• Emphasis on structural structural analysis
(Strauss and Corbin, 1998)• RetrospectiveRetrospective data collection• 14 interviews + other evidence
Beliefs,judgements about cause and effect
Structural Findings
Motives,representations of inner mental states
Momors,MOtive-to-MOtive
Relations
Desires,pursued for
their own sake
Needs,pursued for the sake
of something else
Technologies,tools pertaining to motives
Temors,TEchnology-to-MOtive
Relations
influences
selection
A map of how A map of how technologiestechnologies
are linkedare linkedto motivesto motivesvia beliefsvia beliefs
Structural Findings
Motives,representations of inner mental states
Desires,pursued for
their own sake
Needs,pursued for the sake
of something else
Technologies,tools pertaining to motives
Beliefs,judgements about cause and effect
Momors,MOtive-to-MOtive
Relations
Temors,TEchnology-to-MOtive
Relations
influences
selection
……but HOW?but HOW?
Behavioral analysis is needed!Behavioral analysis is needed!
A map of how A map of how technologiestechnologies
are linkedare linkedto motivesto motivesvia beliefsvia beliefs……
Behavioral Findings I
Adoption is a set of three cognitive processeswith distinct information requirements.
SelectionSelection Which technology best suits my current needs?
UsesUses beliefs Simple behavior: runs until it terminates
EvaluationEvaluation How well does this technology suit my needs?
ChangesChanges beliefs Event-driven behavior: stimulus/response
MaintenanceMaintenance Is this technology ready to use?
Factual Event-driven behavior: stimulus/response
Behavioral Findings IIThe Selection Process (n = 75 episodes)
FrameSituational
Needs
ReframeSituational
Needs
ActionRequired
AssessOptionalNeeds
Closure
NoOptions
MultipleOptions
OneOption
Quit
Can’tQuit
Committo Option
Procrastinate
RecallTechnology
Option
ScreenOption
PromptingMotive
MakeTradeoff
SensitiveMotive
TakeAction
StatusQuo
GetInfo
GetHelp
Framing Stage Screening Stage Choice StageAdoption criteria:Adoption criteria:1. Timing
Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:1. Timing
Motive Technology
Belief
A map of howA map of howindividuals chooseindividuals choose
technologiestechnologies
Relevant
Familiar
Mixed or NegativeMixed or Positive
First Use
Irrelevant
Unfamiliar
ActiveInterest
Disinterest
PassiveInterest
Initial Use
NegativeEvangelism
Regret Differentiation
Recognition
Mixed
Positive/ConsolidationNegative/Consolidation
Negative
PositiveNegative
Positiveor Mixed
Negativeor Mixed
Positive
PositiveNegativeor Mixed
Positive
Negative or Mixed
PositiveEvangelism
DominanceStructuring
Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:2. Relevance
3. Familiarity
4. Value
Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:2. Relevance
3. Familiarity
4. Value
Behavioral Findings IIIThe Evaluation Process (n = 151 episodes)
A map of howA map of howindividuals learnindividuals learn
about technologiesabout technologies
Motive Technology
Belief
Accessible
Inoperable OperableGainAccess[in Obtainable]
LoseAccess LoseOperation
GainOperation[in Obtainable]
GainOpportunity
LoseOpportunity
Inaccessible
Unobtainable Obtainable
• Gain access = buy, subscribe, renew, borrow.• Lose access = sell, unsubscribe, expire, discard.• Gain operation = repair, resupply.• Lose operation = break, consume.
Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:5. Opportunity
6. Accessibility
7. Operability
Adoption criteria:Adoption criteria:5. Opportunity
6. Accessibility
7. Operability
Behavioral Findings IVThe Maintenance Process (n = 57 episodes)
A map of theA map of thecurrent usabilitycurrent usabilityof a technologyof a technology
Motive Technology
Belief
Behavioral Findings V
Operational linkage between selection & evaluation occurs through the mirror mechanisms of:
ConsolidationConsolidation of needs into an habitual set of options
– and –
DifferentationDifferentation of needs into a sensitized set of options
The Seven Criteria for Adoption
TimingTiming Is my need immediate or in the future?
RelevanceRelevance Is this technology relevant to my need?
FamiliarityFamiliarity Have I used this technology before?
ValueValue Is it positive, negative, mixed, or unknown?
OpportunityOpportunity Can I get this technology?
AccessibilityAccessibility Do I already have this technology?
OperabilityOperability Does this technology function?
During future research these criteria will provide the basisfor a survey instrument to measure the stage of adoption
During future research these criteria will provide the basisfor a survey instrument to measure the stage of adoption
Summary
Adoption is a set of three cognitive processes having distinct information requirements:
SelectionSelection
EvaluationEvaluation
MaintenanceMaintenance
Main Contributions
• Empirical findings
– Research has established an empirical link between technology adoption and basic cognitive processes.
– Selection and evaluation are cognitively distinct mental processes with different information requirements.
• The first empirically derived theory of adoption
– An explanatory theory – more than a model
– In the Whitehead tradition
– Explicitly decision-theoretic
Sources: Whitehead (1929)
Questions?
Bibliography
Andrews, C. J., Baptista, A. I., & Patton, S. (2005). Grounded theory and multi-agent simulation for a small firm. In T. Terano & H. Kita & T. Kaneda & K. Arai & H. Deguchi (Eds.), Agent-Based Simulation: From Modeling Methodologies to Real-World Applications. Tokyo: Springer-Verlag.
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R., M. (2007). Baboon Metaphysics: The Evolution of a Social Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Eveland, J. D. (1979). Issues in using the concept of 'adoption of innovations'. Journal of Technology Transfer, 4(1), 1-13.
Goldspink, C. (2002). Methodological implications of complex systems approaches to sociality: Simulation as a foundation for knowledge. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(1).
Katz, E. (1999). Theorizing diffusion: Tarde and Sorokin revisited. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 144-155.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
Whitehead, A. N. (1929/1969). Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (paperback ed.). New York: Free Press.
Photo credits: Bike Portland, Flexcar, Trimet, Toyota
Behavioral Modeling
Composite Sequence Analysis
• A method for identifying typical process sequencesand families of sequences (Miles and Huberman, 1994)
– Provided evidence for the agent’s activity diagrams and statechartsProvided evidence for the agent’s activity diagrams and statecharts
• What follows is a step-by-step illustration of behavioral analysis1. Interview→Transcript
2. Transcript→Chronology
3. Chronology→Decision Diagram (Langley, 1999)
4. Decision Diagram→Sequence Coding
5. Sequence Coding→Dataset
6. Dataset→Sequence Diagram
7. Sequence Diagram→UML Model
Interview→Transcript (optional)
B: How long have you been using TriMet?
#1: Oh, well…I moved back to Oregon after a number of years away, a long time, almost 20 years away, in 1998. I’ve been using TriMet since that time. I grew up with it…I think it was called Rose City Transit when I was small. My mom took me everywhere in Portland on Rose City Transit. I grew up with riding the bus. She’s from Germany, they always had decent mass transit. She didn’t know how to drive, so we were always on the bus somewhere.
[time mark 11:00]
B: If I were to ask you about some of the feelings or meanings that you have personally constructed around the bus or mass transit, could you describe some of those to me?
#1: I think it’s often very convenient. It’s often slower than if you park your car, but on the other end you don’t have to pay, you don’t have to look for a parking place or pay for it, so to me it comes out even - even though I can get downtown quicker from my house in my car than I can on TriMet. But then I might use my time hunting for a parking place. I usually enjoy it, it’s sort of like a little cultural experience. Sometimes I’m too tired to have the cultural experience, because you just never know what you’re going to get on the bus. Sometimes it’s like walking into a play.
TranscriptParagraph
032
033
035
036
034
Timeline Issue Category Paragraph
Childhood Rides Rose City Transit bus with mother Personal 33
1998Moves back to Portland after long absence; lives in area with limited walking options
Functional-Social-Personal
33, 76, 91
1998 Becomes caregiver for elderly mother Social-Personal 76
1998 Unable to find acceptable bus options for visiting mother Functional-Social 78, 80
2001? Working full time downtown Functional 63
Sept 2001 Hired as adjunct faculty for PSU and PCC Functional 13
2001-2006 Busy schedule; pressed for time Functional 82, 84, 89
2001-2006 Dissatisfied with cost of campus parking Functional 9, 17, 159
2001-2006 Parking hassles at PSU + PCC Functional 9, 17, 29, 159, 165
2001-2003 Bus use increasing; buys monthly pass Functional 21, 63, 65-66
2001-2006 Uses personal auto to drive to transit center (w/ trip chaining) Functional 21, 27
2001-2006 Combines Trimet with PCC shuttle bus Functional 31
2001-2006General satisfaction with Trimet, except for cost, availability, and accessibility issues
Functional36, 221, 227-229, 231, 235
2001-2006 Enjoys using bus ride for teaching prep, rest periods/napsFunctional-Personal
9, 13, 17, 217-219
2001-2006 Tired of driving, but thankful to have a car Functional 97, 249
Transcript→Chronology(or voicerecording
index)
Commuting between home, campus, downtown, mother• Increasing bus use; buys monthly pass• Utilizes shuttle bus to commute between campuses• Tries to reduce use of personal vehicle (trip chaining)• Occasional walking
Childhood Sept 2001 20031998
Rides Rose City transit with
mother
Commute tradeoff
Unable to find acceptable bus
options for visiting mother
(-)
Campus parking is expensive
Pressed for time
(--)
Caregiver for elderly mother
Moves back to Portland after long absence
Hired as adjunct
Parkinghassles at PSU
& PCC
Uses bus time for teaching prep
(--)
(+)(-)
(--)
Working as adjunct faculty at PSU & PCC
Settles in area with few walking
options
Becomes caregiver for
elderly mother
Uses bus time to rest and nap
(+)
FU
NC
TIO
NA
LP
ER
SO
NA
LS
OC
IAL
Chronology→Decision Diagram
Commuting between home, campus, downtown, mother• Increasing bus use; buys monthly pass• Utilizes shuttle bus to commute between campuses• Tries to reduce use of personal vehicle (trip chaining)• Occasional walking
Childhood Sept 2001 20031998
Rides Rose City transit with
mother
Commute tradeoff
Unable to find acceptable bus
options for visiting mother
(-)
Campus parking is expensive
Pressed for time
(--)
Caregiver for elderly mother
Moves back to Portland after long absence
Hired as adjunct
Parkinghassles at PSU
& PCC
Uses bus time for teaching prep
(--)
(+)(-)
(--)
Working as adjunct faculty at PSU & PCC
Settles in area with few walking
options
Becomes caregiver for
elderly mother
Uses bus time to rest and nap
(+)
FU
NC
TIO
NA
LP
ER
SO
NA
LS
OC
IAL
Decision Diagram→Sequence Coding
EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus)
Sequence codesSequence codesare derived fromare derived from
use case analysisuse case analysis
Process ESN Page Episode Sequence
Selection 1/1 Adjunct at PSU and PCC EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus) Evaluation 1/1 Car hassles EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON DIF Evaluation 1/1 Bus evaluation EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON DIF
Selection 1/1 Consulting in downtown PDX EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO OO CMT ACT (car) Maintenance 1/2 Purchases PP+ EVTM SUB
Evaluation 1/2 Evaluates PP+ EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON INT TRY 1ST DIFEvaluation 1/3 Interested in Flexcar EVTE CXT VAL ATT UON INT SI TRY
Maintenance 1/3 Subscribes to Flexcar EVTM SUB
Sequence Coding→Data Set
32 interviews yielded 283 sequences:75 Selection sequences
151 Evaluation sequences
57 Maintenance sequences
EVTS FSN AR RCL (bus) AON SCO RCL (car) AON SCO CLO MO MT CMT ACT (bus)
Dataset→Sequence Diagram
FrameSituational
Needs
ReframeSituational
Needs
ActionRequired
AssessOptionalNeeds
ClosureExceeded
NoOptions
MultipleOptions
OneOption
Quit
Can’tQuit
Committo Option
Procrastinate
RecallTechnology
Option
ScreenOption
PromptingMotive
MakeTradeoff
SensitiveMotive
TakeAction
StatusQuo
GetInfo
GetHelp
Framing Stage Screening Stage Choice Stage
FrameSituational
Needs
ReframeSituational
Needs
ActionRequired
AssessOptionalNeeds
ClosureExceeded
NoOptions
MultipleOptions
OneOption
Quit
Can’tQuit
Committo Option
Procrastinate
RecallTechnology
Option
ScreenOption
PromptingMotive
MakeTradeoff
SensitiveMotive
TakeAction
StatusQuo
GetInfo
GetHelp
FrameSituational
Needs
ReframeSituational
Needs
ActionRequired
AssessOptionalNeeds
ClosureExceeded
NoOptions
MultipleOptions
OneOption
Quit
Can’tQuit
Committo Option
Procrastinate
RecallTechnology
Option
ScreenOption
PromptingMotive
MakeTradeoff
SensitiveMotive
TakeAction
StatusQuo
GetInfo
GetHelp
Select Technology <<precondition>> usage situation
Prompting Motive : Motive <<postcondition>> technology chosen
Situational Need Optional NeedTechnology
[closure achieved]
[else]
PromptingMotive
InfoHelp
[else]
[action required]
[else] [limit exceeded]
[else]
[closure achieved]
RecallSituational Need
Situational Context
Recall Technology Technology
RecallOptional Need
Optional Need
Check forViolation
Check ifAction Required
Reject Technology
Technology Set
Check for Closure
Optional Need Set
Check for Closure
[closure achieved]
Check for Closure
[else]
AcquireHelp AcquireInfo
SensitizeMotive
MakeTradeoff
ChooseTechnology
ReframeContext
SituationalContext
Check toBegin Action
[technology set < 1] [technology set > 1]
[else]
[limit exceeded] [else]
[use][procrastinate]
[status quo]
Sequence Diagram→
Activity Diagram
From interviewFrom interviewto UML diagram:to UML diagram:
an unbrokenan unbrokentrail of evidencetrail of evidence
Bibliography
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. The Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-710.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage.