What is adoption?
When looking in the Cambridge Dictionary, they refer to adoption as “accepting or starting to use something new.” While you might think that the word “accepting” and the phrase “starting to use” can be used interchangeably, there is an intricate detail that must not be overlooked.
This detail is small, but when looking at innovations, it can mean the rise or fall of it. The innovation literature describes adoption in roughly two ways: at the individual level and at the organizational level. Although these two streams of literature seem separate, they can mean a lot to each other when reviewing the difference between accepting and starting to use.
Yes, I will use this new tool...
So, what is the difference? How many times have you had your boss come to you and mention that the department is transitioning to a new method of doing business and that it will benefit “everyone”? This idea of introducing something new to people who will “just” understand it and go on to use the new method is common. In many firms, it is simply shoved down everyone’s throats, and thus the innovation is accepted (read: adopted).
I think that all of you reading this will agree with me that a significant part of the workforce will either say that they will use this new method, but in practice never use it, or, even worse, become irritated with the organization and the managers. We see that the subtle difference between “accepting” and “starting to use” is actually major and stems from attitudes and intrinsic behaviors toward the new method or innovation.
When does someone adopt an innovation?
After the 20th century, when a lot of groundbreaking work was done on adoption, Venkatesh took it upon himself to further develop the available adoption models into what he called the “Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology” – quite a mouthful – but let’s abbreviate it to “UTAUT” [3]. This theory combined the work of many academics into a theory that explains technological acceptance on an individual level.
The basic concept of this model is that individuals’ reactions to using technology influence their intention to use the information technology, which in turn leads to the actual use of the technology (see Figure 1)
Venkatesh used this basic concept for the creation of the UTAUT model. In this model, he describes three direct effects on behavioral intention and one direct effect on use behavior. Furthermore the model describes moderation effects on these direct effects. In this next section I will break the direct effects down for you.
Direct effects
- 1. Performance expectancy
Defined as the degree to which an individual believes that using the system will help them achieve gains in job performance. This direct effect originates from early academic research, which identified perceived usefulness as a key factor in determining whether people would accept a technology [1]. In addition to perceived usefulness, this idea is based on the notion that technology should enhance an employee’s capabilities, often referred to as the job-fit model [2].
- 2. Effort expectancy
Defined as the degree of ease associated with using the system. This is one of the direct effects that, in my opinion, is often overlooked. The importance of a technology being easy to use is a characteristic that rarely appears in technical reports, though it should be included. This concept is also referred to as “perceived ease of use” or “perceived complexity.” [1, 2].
- 3. Social influence
Defined as the degree to which an individual perceives that important others believe he or she should use the new system. This effect relates to the influence of others’ opinions on what is considered “good” for you. For example, top management may believe that using a particular technology will improve performance. Another example is that of when you were little (or even now that I am a bit older), you cared about what others thought was the right way of doing things. In this way, we are all shaped by our own paradigms.”
- 4. Facilitation conditions
Defined as the degree to which an individual believes that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to support the use of the system. This direct effect influences actual behavior within the UTAUT model and can be compared to being a woodworker without proper tools. Everyone may agree that the goal is to build a table from the wood, but without a table saw, good luck!
It’s a lot to take in initially. However, you’ll see that these direct effects are about individual perception. Adoption is built on perception and one’s point of reference. As this detail is often not understood by practitioners in the field, it is very important for the technology to be accepted.
How does management perceive PQC?
After introducing the concept of adoption, we can explore its application to post-quantum cryptography (PQC).
PQC, as an emerging technology, is still in its early stages and is perceived differently across industries and organizations. The knowledge available to decision-makers will shape their perception and approach toward PQC adoption, making this a good starting point.
When top management has a deeper understanding of PQC, they are better positioned to assess both the expected performance benefits and the required effort for implementation. Moreover, informed management can foster a culture where social influence supports PQC adoption. This alignment in social influences can lead to stronger facilitating conditions, as management is more likely to allocate the necessary resources and support infrastructure that enable successful PQC adoption.
In my next blog post, I will delve deeper into how not only individuals but also organizations adopt innovations.
References
[1] Davis, F. D. “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Informa- tion Technology,” MIS Quarterly (13:3), 1989, pp. 319-33
[2] Thompson, R. L., Higgins, C. A., and Howell, J. M. “Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization,” MIS Quarterly (15:1), 1991, pp. 124-14
[3] Venkatesh, V. et al. 2003. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems. 27, 3 (2003), 425–478. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
