Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DRIVERS AND BARRIERS FOR VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES
ADOPTION - AN EXPLORATORY ANALYSIS
Rodica Ianole !
Faculty of Business and Administration University of Bucharest
Outline
Context!
Methodology (mixed methods)!
Preliminary results!
Conclusions and potential implications
Main objective
The paper aims to elicit and discuss upon the main factors influencing the process of adopting video technologies by employing a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods.
Context
Resistance to innovation is a fairly neglected topic in the Romanian economic literature, especially comparing it with the significant stream of papers devoted to innovation itself!
The adoption of video technologies illustrates a particular case of such resistance, with an ambivalent nature, hard to identify only at a conceptual level
Methods (1)
Qualitative research - 4 focus groups!
1 with subjects aged over 50 years!
1 with subjects characterised by a certain rigidity to technology adoption (self-assesment)!
1 with public service employees!
1 with students
Results: barriers and facilitators
High intensity barriers (of different natures)!
1. A fear of taking responsibility for a certain equipment/technology (psychological barrier)!
2. A fear of damaging the equipment/technology (psychological & financial barrier)!
3. High costs of the equipment/technology (financial and value-related barrier)!
4. Lack of information (functional barrier)
5. Maintaining the status-quo (psychological barrier)!
6. Fear of getting dependent to that equipment/technology (psychological barrier)!
7. An impersonal communication (psychological & social barrier)!
8. The need for a continuous upgrade (time-consuming) (functional barrier)
FacilitatorsEliminating distances!
Saving time!
Social pressure!
Contextual needs!
Dissemination of technology!
Balance between the personal and professional life!
Reducing costs!
Friendly interface!
Increasing comfort!
Popularity (especially for young generations)!
Information
Methods (2)
Mapping of mental representations associated to the adoption of video technologies!
Reference point: the study of Svenson and Nilsson (1986) regarding expected inflation!
Target group: students from two different specialisations (marketing and psychology)
From the focus group we have aggregated 9 variables of interest!
V1 = personal income!
V2 = consumption expenses!
V3 = self-control!
V4 = price of the video technology!
V5 = technical knowledge (regarding the video technology)!
V6 = perception of technical risks (to produce damages, to assume responsibility, to lose data etc)!
V7 = perception of personal risks (changing the status-quo, addiction to technology, health negative effects etc)!
V8 = perception of how efficient is the video technology!
V9 = social pressure
Firstly, the students were asked to say for what happens with the adoption rate of technology (increase, decrease, constant) if each of the 9 variables increases, one per turn.!
Secondly, the students had to estimate the importance of a variable in determining a change in the adoption rate. !
In order to do that, students were presented all the pairs of variables and they had to give numerical estimations for the ratio between perceived importance of the less significant variable and perceived importance of the most significant variable in a pair. !
For example, the pair personal income and self-control. If the subject considers self control as the most important factor he will assign a value of 100 and if compared to it, personal income has half of its importance, it will receive a score of 50.
Preliminary results
A comparative evaluation of the variables leading to a decreasing of the adoption rate
A comparative evaluation of the variables with a neutral effect on the adoption rate
A comparative evaluation of the variables leading to an increase of the adoption rate
Further research and implications
The mapping will be continued by building a value scale for each group, respectively a regression model to cross these value scales and infer a certain level of agreement/disagreement between the groups!
These quantified differences are relevant as a source of possible conflicts and misunderstanding in shaping the strategies and policies aimed at reducing resistance to innovation
THANK YOU FOR YOU ATTENTION!
!
!
Această lucrare a fost realizată prin programul Parteneriate in domenii prioritare — PN II, derulat cu sprijinul MEN –
UEFISCDI, proiect nr. 319/2014.
