Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Â
Citation preview
Innovation characteristics and their role in
the movement from early adopter to the
early majority.
Student number: 119016427
05, 2015
Words: 10,920
Dissertation submitted to the University of Leicester in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree
of BA Management Studies
1
Abstract
The reason behind technology spreading is littered with a large variety of theories and
models. This paper sets out to explain how the characteristics of an innovation are part
of that journey through society. Currently academic literature has looked at innovation
characteristics in general but not in particular, the jump from early adopter to the early
majority. This jump is the largest an innovation can take in its journey to the mass
consumer market, this study looks to address how innovation characteristics relate to
this movement. A technology currently looking to make that jump is consumer 3d
printing that looks to revolutionise the way we make and do things.
Utilising a series of interviews with leading 3D print figures, this study identifies the role
innovation characteristics play in the movement from the early adopter to the early
majority. By exploring five key characteristics and applying them to this context it
broadens the understanding and scope of the theory of diffusion. The primary focus
being what characteristics show when applied and which characteristics play a more
vital role in this adoption transfer. Finally, the research concludes that adoption is
primarily based on the ability of the early adopters to mould the innovation
characteristics for the early majority.
2
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Literature review 6
2.1 Early adopters 7
2.2 Early majority 8
2.3 Innovation and its characteristics 9
2.4 Relative advantage 10
2.5 Compatibility 11
2.6 Complexity 11
2.7 Trialability 12
2.8 Observability 13
3. Methodology 15
3.1 Research questions 15
3.2 Approach to research 16
3.3 Sampling strategy 16
3.4 Data collection process 17
3.5 Data analysis process 18
3.6 Ethics 19
4. Research findings and analysis 20
4.1 Current stage of adoption 21
4. 2 The diffusion of innovations and consumer 3D printing 24
4.3 Relative advantage 28
4.4 Compatibility 30
4.5 Complexity 33
4.6 Trialability 35
4.7 Observability 37
4.8 The importance of innovation characteristics and adoption 39
5. Conclusion 42
6. Appendices 51
A. Interview profiles 51
B. Interview questions 53
3
1.Introduction
Technology is currently used all over the world in the form of computers, television and
mobile phones bettering the lives of many. The way in which that technology spreads is
inherently important to understanding the successes and failures of the technology we
use today. Understanding how and why innovations become part of our lives gives
insight into the way we operate and interact as human beings. The current leading
academic theory on how technology spreads is the Diffusion of Innovations by Rogers
(2003). Within this theory the variables for that spread and adoption of technology
taking place are discussed. A key variable academically recognised as being part of the
adoption process, the characteristics of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). To find out how
innovation characteristics play a role in the movement from early adopters to early
majority I will be using consumer 3D printing as the context. The purpose of this study is
to identify how the consumer 3D Printing market can alleviate itself from a niche early
adopter group to a wider audience. The literature review shows how academics believe
technology spreads and through that goes through various stages of adoption. It then
looks at where the consumer 3D printing market is situated on the technological
adoption scale. Looking at in particular the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers, 2003) and
how within that, characteristics of an innovation play a large role in its spread and
adoption. Each characteristic is broken down and discussed with its relevance to
consumer 3D printing. The diffusion of innovations has been applied to a variety of new
technologies but never to consumer 3D printing. This is the gap the research intends to
4
fill by focusing on the characteristics laid out by Rogers‟ Diffusion of Innovations (2003)
and what role they play in adoption. In chapter 3 this study goes onto to explain what
research method was used, how the information was utilised and how it was gathered.
The discussion section in chapter 4 begins with the information gathered and looks at it
in line with previous academic literature. There is a focus in this chapter on the answers
to the research questions and the relevant themes that come out of the research. In the
final chapter the research conducted will be evaluated and future research suggestions
made.
The 3D Printer has been part of the progression forward with bettering the way we work.
3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is the process of adding layers on
top of each other to create a three dimensional object. Unlike the majority of
manufacturing processes that subtracts material to create an object a 3D Printer will,
like its namesake (additive manufacturing) add material. 3D Printing‟s main use has
always been product development and rapid prototyping Multinationals have been using
the technology for years for things like building developmental parts or testing product
concepts. The technology has progressed so much 3D printers are making their way
into the homes of the general public; a move away from the office to the consumer user.
The consumer 3D printing movement began from the project to create a machine, which
could create better versions of itself (RepRap project). These devices have now moved
from precarious machines that could create rudimentary objects to a whole industry of
high end printers that can print metal, plastic and even food based items. The 3D Printer
is now heralded as the start of the next industrial revolution due to the way in which
content can be instantly shared with a device which can then create that content in
5
physical form (Barnatt, 2013). The 3D printing market is currently worth $789 million
with around 11.6% made up from consumer purchases, this is expected to grow to 28%
by 2018 with an within an overall market value of $13.4 billion (Gartner, 2014).
Understanding how innovation characteristics help to move adoption forward will give
insight into how 3D printing can make its first steps into the early majority and how
potential other technologies can follow in its footsteps.
6
2. Literature Review
With the basis of this study in finding out how technology spreads from one area to
another and finding out the key factors for which this is dependent the key text in this
field is the „Diffusion of Innovations‟ written by Rogers (1983) . Diffusion science is based
on the communication of an innovation to a small subset of potential adopters so that
they will influence the vast majority of other potential adopters to consider, adopt,
implement and maintain the use of said innovation (Dearing, 2008). Alternate models for
technological adoption such as Bass Diffusion model (Bass, 1969) and Technological
acceptance model (Davis,1989) are respected ways in which to study how technology
spreads but Rogers (2003) diffusion of innovations has been proven in many scenarios
to provide a key insight into how technology spreads. The theory has been used in
various contexts including marketing, knowledge management and communications and
has been shown to outline the factors in which this spread can happen (Greenhalgh et
al., 2005). It is important to remember that diffusion theories can never account for
every variable and in turn may miss important predictors of adoption (Plsek and
Greenhalgh, 2001). It has been argued that the adopter categories set out by Rogers
assume all technology follows the same distributive path and that the size of these
adopter groups are all the same which is an issue with its application (Mahajan et al,
1990). To counter-argue this though it has been proven adopter categories provide a
7
powerful means in which to segment audiences thereby showing how innovations move
from one to the next (Valente, 1996).
2.1 Early adopters
The early adopters of consumer 3D printing are known as the maker community they
are considered the trendsetters and are opinion leaders in their social groups. The
maker community are the lead-users and refine technology they are given to meet their
needs, they appreciate the benefits of new technology easily (Moore, 1999). There is no
need for early adopters to reference their buying decision like other adopter groups
which is seen with continual line of new 3d printing products being successful. They
instead, rely on their own vision and intuition so they can maintain their central
communication position (Moore, 1999). The rise of fabrication labs and makerspaces
has been happening all over the UK thanks to the maker community showing a need to
spread the message of 3D printing (Lahart, 2015). The early adopter has always been
considered an active member within societal conversations about technology but the
maker movement as it is also known plays a far bigger role. This includes holding
events, starting makerspaces and bringing 3D printing to local communities (Burnett
and Brooks, 2013). Consumer 3D printing has been discussed previously confirming its
place as in the early adopter stage due to the nature of its current users (Gartner,
2013). The beginning of 2011 was the beginning of the early adoption phase. Research
has shown the rise of personal fabrication was the cause of this as consumers looked to
fix broken object in their homes without the direction of those that manufactured them
(Mota, 2011). This is in line with the characteristics of adopter‟s categories assumptions
8
Rogers (2003) stating that early adopters are risk takers who are more likely than the
early majority to make purchases without feedback from their surroundings and without
complete knowledge of their capabilities.
2.2 Early majority
The early majority are those who adopt new technology just before the average member
of a system, they interact with those around them but do not hold positions of direct
influence (Rogers, 2003). For example an early adopter is likely to purchase a
consumer 3D printer when no one on their street has one whereas the early majority will
wait for that first person to make the purchase and then wait ti ll they feel they‟ve been
proven useful. It is argued that between the early adopters and early majority lays a
chasm due to the distinct different nature of adopters (Moore, 1999). Although past
research shows no real support for this claim of the idea of a chasm, Rogers (2003)
counter argues that the opposite is present as innovativeness is a sharp variable and
there are no sharp breaks or chasms. The early majority is categorised as having less
affluence and education than the early adopters group meaning they want an innovation
which is more obvious for both its uses and benefits (Rogers, 2003). When discussing
the early majority within the context it will mean the beginning of mass consumer
adoption.
9
2.3 Innovation and its characteristics
Consumer 3D printing within the academic literature of innovation is known as a
disruptive innovation. With the ability to make, copy and swap products within the home
it democratises the manufacturing world giving consumers the chance to make what
they want not where they're told they want (Zurcher, 2014). Disruptive innovations are
based on their ability to break up current markets and create new product economies
(Shin and Lee, 2011). In order to understand the innovations potential adoption its
characteristics must be broken down and analysed as done in previous studies on
disruptive technologies such as solar power (Labay and Kinnear, 1981). These five
characteristics are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and
observability they are viewed as the ways in which to decrease the uncertainty so that
innovation-diffusion can take place (Rogers, 1995). The five characteristics have been
looked at to explain how technology spreads with research showing they play a large
role in the movement from one adoption group to the next (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997).
Current literature on 3D printing in line with these characteristics and the diffusion of
innovations has not been made so has created a hole in which the research can fill.
Further research has outlined though that some studies consider these characteristics
to be ambiguous (Kapoor et al, 2014) although other studies argue their perception
does carry a high amount of influence on the rate of adoption (Mahajan, Muller and
Bass, 1995). Existing research suggests that the most important of these characteristics
10
are relative advantage, complexity and compatibility after testing Rogers 5 attributes
alongside 25 others (Tornatzky and Klein, 1982). Academic literature has made
arguments for and against the importance of the individual characteristics laid out, each
technology analysed has had different attributes prioritised by adopters and at different
stages. Factors which dictate movement from one adopter group to the next do not
necessarily relate as each group is different and has different needs although the
innovation characteristics are a central point throughout the process (Rogers, 2003);
this is why the focus is in this area.
2.4 Relative Advantage
Relative advantage is defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
being better than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003: 229). The greater the
perceived relative advantage the faster it will be adopted, these can be things such as
convenience, satisfaction or social status. Diffusion scholars regard relative advantage
as one of the biggest predictors of an innovation‟s adoption (Rogers, 2003). Research
has found it hard to find rules to what can constitute relative advantage as it is based on
the perceptions and needs of the user group (Robinson, 2012). In this theoretical
context looking at early adopters to the early majority it has been found that they are
more status-motivated than other adoption groupings (Rogers, 2003). The relative
advantages of 3D printing have been identified over traditional manufacturing methods
as the reduction in waste, the ability to instantly produce objects on a global scale and
11
the digital nature of the manufacturing process (the ability to create complex shapes)
(Campbell et al., 2011).
2.5 Compatibility
This is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being consistent with the
values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters (Rogers, 2003). An idea that
is incompatible with their values, norms or practices will not be adopted as rapidly as an
innovation that is compatible. Rogers break down the compatibility innovation
characteristic into three areas compatibility with sociocultural values and beliefs,
previously introduced ideas and client‟s needs for the innovation (Rogers, 2003). For
consumer 3D printing compatibility can mean issues with intellectual property, the early
majority will want to use the technology in line with their existing lifestyle (experiences,
needs, values). Research into intellectual property and 3D printing has shown it to be of
high risk similarly to the rise of the computer and pirated music distribution (Bradshaw,
Bowyer and Haufe, 2010). Reactions to previous technological innovations have tended
to be slow by legislators but have rarely impeded the spread of the technology (Doherty,
2012).
2.6 Complexity
Complexity defined by Rogers (2003: 257) “the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as relatively difficult to understand and use”. The early adopters will have
12
tendency to overcome perceived complexity more than the early majority who perceive
this as a large obstacle to adoption (Rogers, 2003). With current machines available
they require a relatively high level of involvement in terms of both knowledge and
practical ability (Milkert, 2015). Rogers (2003) uses the example of how home
computers were initially utilised by hobbyists and then adopted by the early majority
when they became easier to use. For 3D printing this would be the same scenario as
the early majority want a machine similarly to a microwave where you have a
straightforward process without the amount of variables in the machines today. Issues
with today's current crop of desktop-based 3D printers are that the printers are
considered to need a level of attention not easily given by the mass markets (in terms of
time to set-up, print, file design) (Raconteur, 2014). The design skills needed to model
objects is a large barrier for adoption from the early majority to offset this though large
repositories of files to instantly print are available to curb this complexity of 3D printing
(Ratto and Ree, 2012).
2.7 Trialability
Trialability is the degree to which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited
basis; trialability is positively correlated with the rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003). The
13
more a 3D printer is tried the faster its adoption will be is the hypothesis from this. The
early adopters and early majority view the trialability attribute of innovations more
importantly than other adopter groups (Ryan, 1948). For trialability to take place access
to the innovation must be present in some way. In the long term the UK government has
put 3D Printing into the curriculum in some schools which has shown to increase the
propensity by students to purchase the technology for personal use (Department for
Education, 2013). In the short term trialability can take place through the active
community of the maker community who look to share their experiences. Rogers (2003)
expresses the importance of communication as near peers have a greater effect on an
adoption decision than other social factors. The „Maker movement‟ has been shown to
create a snowball effect, as each person recommends the technology to another which
in turn grew the innovators into the early adopters (Ratto and Ree, 2012).
2.8 Observability
Observability is the level in which the results of the innovation in question are visible to
others (Rogers, 2003). As consumer 3D Printing is more of a hardware based
innovation whereby it embodies itself through its physical creations it means it is more
observable and therefore can have a higher rate of adoption than the software that it
needs to create its objects (Rogers, 2003). Mainstream media has created a hype
around consumer 3D Printing making it observable in general but with no consensus for
the public on how in particular it is useful to them (Wallop, 2013). In order for consumers
14
to see the results of a technology they must be laid out in the right context and be
clearly linked to their everyday lives (Davis, 1989). Companies like 3D Hubs offer
access to observing 3D printers all over the world through their distributed network of
3D printers, they have a 3D printer within 10 miles of 1 billion people in the world
(Balderton.com, 2014).
15
3. Methodology
3.1 Research Questions
In the literature review there was a focus provided on the theory of technological
diffusion and the innovation characteristics role in diffusion. The context of consumer
3D printing means looking at in particular the stage it is in and the stage, which it
faces next. Empirical evidence is essential to looking at how innovation
characteristics play a role in the movement from early adopter to early majority. The
growth of consumer 3D printing is something that could change the world,
understanding how this revolutionary technology can diffuse amongst our social
system is something that could give an insight to the next steps for consumer 3D
printing. The aim of this research is to understand as follows:
1. How can the theory of diffusion be applied to the spread of consumer 3D
printing?
2. What role will each innovation characteristic play in the diffusion of consumer
3D printing?
3. What are the most important innovation characteristics for consumer 3D
printing going from the early adopter stage to the early majority?
16
3.2 Approach to research.
The dissertation‟s aim is to find out how Rogers (2003) innovation characteristics will
affect the adoption of consumer 3D printing from the early adopter stage to the early
majority. The intention is to find this out by answering the research question that are
outlined in the research questions. To answer these questions conducting qualitative
research in the form of a semi-structured interview was deemed to be the best
approach. Interviews will take place with participants that hold influential positions
within the 3D printing industry with a focus on the consumer side of the industry in line
with the research. If quantitative research was conducted it would be hard to gauge
opinions and then analyse the thoughts of the participants due to the statistical nature
of quantitative research (Bryman and Bell 2011). The expertise and knowledge of the
participants was the main asset to the research, therefore qualitative research was
the best method. The breakdown of the interviews can be found in Appendix B. This
type of research allowed me to see well thought out answers from those questioned
and to then bring through themes of how each characteristic was viewed.
3.3 Sampling strategy
17
The people directly affected by the innovation characteristics laid out by Rogers
(2003) are those that encounter and manage them regularly. The people that were
interviewed are in the 3d printing industry and have an emphasis on their activities
being a part of breaking into the early majority market. It was felt that using people
who could recognise the innovation characteristics would lead to more insightful
answers to the questions and allow for a wider and more open discussion. The
sampling method that was chosen was purposive sampling (a non probability
method) the reason for this was so that the caliber of participants would be able to
provide high level answers. Purposive sampling is most effective when studying a
certain domain with experts in a certain field hence the decision (Tongco, 2007). It is
understood that this kind of sampling cannot be used to generalise the findings about
innovation characteristics but further research could be done with other types of
sampling to fill this void (Bryman and Bell 2011). The different backgrounds of
participants meant that although they had interests in helping the movement from
early adopter to early majority it was in different ways (See Appendix A). There were
four participants, which was an achievable number due to the busy schedules of the
types of people that were wanted and the depth in which they were interviewed. The
four that were picked cover a wide range of areas, though further research could
include more, but the data that was collated was substantial enough especially due to
the high profile nature of the people interviewed. Please see appendix A for profiles
of interview participants and their relevant experience in the field.
18
3.4 Data Collection Process
The method of data collection conducted was through semi-structured interviews by
either phone or video calling. Due to the nature of the interviewees their schedules
were always very full and locations varied rapidly due to work, especially for one of
the participants who was based in the Netherlands. Before the interview process
participants were emailed the themes of the research to give a general idea of what
we would be talking about to save time and for efficiency. Semi-structured interviews
let me go further than the questions written down so that if valuable discussions arose
which had not been considered they could be discussed further whilst staying on topic
(Bryman and Bell 2011). Previous research has always predominantly used surveys
and questionnaires within workplaces to look at how innovation characteristics affect
a technologies adoption (Flight, D'Souza and Allaway, 2011) (Zolkepli and
Kamarulzaman, 2015). This gap in current innovation characteristics research
showed a need for an alternate method of research to be conducted.
3.5 Data Analysis Process
The interviews conducted were recorded and then transcribed; this was due to the
thematic analysis approach used. A thematic approach helps to find the details within
data through its unrestricted emphasis on them (Boyatzis, 1998). The transcriptions
were made directly after each interview, and then analysed. In line with the thematic
analysis approach transcripts were read, going through identifying possible themes
and comparing them. The interviews were broken down into 7 parts to help answer
19
the research questions. Starting off with the first research question, which was broken
down into sub questions to create a well-rounded view of the topic and the individual
participants views. The interview continued with discussion of the five characteristics
with the participants, analysing what they perceived them to be and how they would
affect adoption. Breaking the interview down into clear areas helped the participants
structure their answers clearly without deviation. Each answer was cross referenced
with each participant's answers and then when patterns emerged they were noted
under relevant sections. This allowed a clear difference or correlation to be spotted in
views and opinions which made it easier when analysing the data. When there was a
clear idea of the themes arising for each section, quotes were found that would
support those findings and answer the research questions.
3.6 Ethics
The research project went through the ethical approval system set out for all research
projects by the University of Leicester. During this process a risk assessment of any
possible ethical issues that could arise and how they would be offset was provided by
myself. This included getting participants to fill out a written consent form for the
interviews conducted for the study. It was let known that if at any time they wanted to
retract their interview or become anonymous that would be possible and transcripts
disposed of. Due to the relatively high profile nature of the candidates it was
important to ask them this due to any conflict of opinion taking place with their work.
All the participants were happy for their profiles to be listed and confirmed the
summaries with them to check for accuracy and level of information given.
20
4. Research findings and discussion.
In this chapter of the dissertation the results of the research and the relevance in
which they have to the research questions are going to be discussed. The responses
that were received from the participants began with their thoughts on where they felt
consumer 3D printing lay on the Technological Adoption model and whether that was
in line with where the research had stated it was. If a participant felt that consumer
3D printing was in the late majority it would be hard for them to ascertain the
important areas for early majority movement, as it would have already happened.
The dissertation is then broken down into the five innovation characteristics
discussing their application to consumer 3D printing and how they apply. The
participants went onto discuss the innovation characteristics role and importance in
the movement from the early adopters to the early majority. Finally the participants
concluded on whether they thought that consumer 3D printing would make the move
from early adoption to the early majority and then what characteristic would be most
important.
21
4.1 The current stage of adoption
The main dependent variable in diffusion theory is the degree with which an individual
is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of a system (Rogers,
2003). Profiling these groups then allows for industries and companies to move
efforts into different areas where they feel the need to progress. From the research it
has been found that consumer 3D printing is currently situated in the early adopter
stage of the technological adoption model as shown in figure 1 in the literature review.
All 4 interview participants agreed with this. The placement given was for various
reasons based on current industry movement and decisions being made. Showing
that the innovation plays a central role to its adoption as well the social system it
operates in. The reasoning behind this placement given by one participant was that,
the industry was moving to a closed source system suggesting big businesses would
not want to keep products open source. This is in line with industry expansion, that
companies begin to close their devices so that they can lock large consumer bases
into an ecosystem (Lerner and Tirole, 2005). In 3D printing this would work with
printer manufacturers, locking their printers to only work with certain software or type
of plastic filament. Charlotte explained that:
“Consumer 3D printing has definitely moved from the hands of the innovators, the
market has shifted towards adopting more closed source approaches to the
technology”
22
The change in the consumer 3D printing machine and the aim to change it by
manufacturers has shown to be a way in which to categorise where it is on the
technological adoption scale. Chris thought the innovation itself showed that it was in
the early adopter stage soon to be early majority stage. He laid out that the machines
currently on the market where getting to a stage where they were affordable to the
early majority. On top of this he knows of manufacturers now talking to major retailers
in regard to stocking consumer 3D printers which shows that companies are gearing
up for the move to the early majority. For example, 3D Systems (one of the largest
manufacturers of the 3D printers in the world hired) the ex retail chief of Bose. The
reason that this outlines we are in the early adoption stage is that currently as
Filemon says you still have to have a level of technical knowledge to operate
machines beyond that of the early majority who look to avoid uncertainty (Rogers,
2003). Charlotte backs up this statement stating that the reason we are in the early
adoption stage is down to the fact that consumer 3D printers are still in the hands of
the experts and „tinkerers‟. The importance of categorising consumer 3D printing
before looking at its characteristics is so that there is a basis underlying the
importance of them. Rogers made assumptions about adopter groups, these
assumptions then translate into how an innovation's characteristics play a role in its
adoption. Not highlighted through Rogers (2003) work though is how each adoption
stage has a role at moulding the innovation characteristics for the next stage of
adoption. Charlotte highlights the importance of the early adopter at breaking down
the barriers of adoption:
23
“The maker movement has helped endorse creativity and sharing of content and idea
through the networks and the web. „Experts‟ are very keen to impart knowledge to like
minded individuals”
In Moore‟s Crossing the Chasm (1999) he highlights that the early majority feel
alienated by early adopters due to the expert knowledge held by them. This research
shows that instead of being alienated there is an exchange of knowledge, which
pushes the adoption forward to the next stage. The maker movement which is the
early adopters utilise their role within this structure to the benefit of all.
In the research It has shown that the activities of the external market have shown to
be the reasoning behind consumer 3D printing categorisation. These external market
activities are reactions to consumer decisions, decisions made by people showing
their level of innovativeness (their propensity to adopt new technologies). The
research has confirmed current academic literature that 3D printing is currently in the
early adoption stage (Mota, 2011). Although the previous academic literature based
its classification on its users whereas the research has shown that basis of the
classification in the study has been whole the external environment. In particular the
current preparations by the industry to go to the next stage this is likely due to the
Mota‟s paper being written in 2011 so consumer 3D printing has made its natural
progression on the adoption cycle to the early adopters.
24
4.2 The Diffusion of Innovations and consumer 3D printing.
In the research it was fundamental to look at the application of diffusion theory so that
within that, the research could be moved forward to the innovation characteristics. It
would be hard to justify the research into the importance of innovation characteristics
without first discussing the application of diffusion theory. The reasoning behind this is
that the characteristics of an innovation are a key part within diffusion theory
alongside communication channels, time and social system. The diffusion of
innovations is especially relevant to consumer 3D printing as the technology began
from a social movement of „makers‟ who created the technology as opposed to a
corporation who would do so for the purpose of profit. This is down to an organically
grown base of innovators perpetuating an idea they created. In the research it was
found that all of the participants thought that Rogers theory of diffusion was relevant
to the adoption of consumer 3D printing. All of them explained that it was applicable
for different reasons and but the theme was heavily around the idea of how the
current community shares its knowledge and works together to promote the
technology. Charlotte explained that the current climate of the industry is testament to
how the theory of diffusion is currently working within consumer 3D printing:
“The fact there is currently no significant market leader for distribution or manufacture
of the 3D printer suggest that the current market is still very word of mouth and
community driven”
25
Diffusion theory cannot be summed up as word of mouth as it is more than that but
the quote here exemplifies the way in which the early adopter movement is pushing
the market to the early majority. The power of communication channels is displayed
with this quote to how technology diffuses, the characteristics of that technology is
what work side by side with this to further the rate of adoption. Filemon agreed with
Charlotte but explained it in a slightly different way, explaining that 3D printing is a
form of distributive value. He goes onto say this distributive value is where the
diffusion of innovations takes place as where there is value, communities will form
around that value and then communities will spread this innovation. Filemon uses the
example of bitcoin as to a form of distributive value whereby decentralised banking
became valuable to communities due to the recession. The theme surrounding this
seems to be based on how centralisation was key and developed during the industrial
revolution. Now we are seeing an alternative industrial revolution whereby
decentralisation is the focus and the value that provides, which shifts the theory of
diffusion from big businesses role to the role of your community.
When interviewing Paul he agreed that the diffusion of innovation was relevant to
consumer 3D printing exclaiming: “Absolutely, but also the „trough of disillusionment‟
is upon us and worth considering”. The trough of disillusionment is a stage of the
hype cycle created by Gartner (2015). It outlines that all technologies go through a
steep incline stage of hype which then breaks down into a steady incline once the
26
hype of a technology has died down (Gartner, 2014). Current research plots
consumer 3D printing at the peak of Figure 1 and when Paul is talking about the
trough of disillusionment he‟s talking about the drop in expectations of consumer 3D
printing (Gartner, 2014). The role that hype plays transfers to the innovation
characteristics that be discussed later on, due to the role it plays in the observability
of a technology.
Figure 1: The Hype Cycle (Gartner.com, 2015)
Another participant Chris discussed that there was a case for the application of the
theory but only if it was supplemented by developments made by Geoffrey Moore:
27
“I think it is (relevant), as long as you have the caveats from Geoffrey Moore‟s
crossing the chasm stuff. There is a gap between the early adopter and the early
majority, different interaction pattern between user and machine”
In the literature review It was explained that in the Diffusion of Innovations (Rogers,
2003) it says that this chasm does not exist. The research contradicts this as Chris
sets out that there is a different pattern of usage, which is not applicable throughout
the adoption cycle. Rogers (2003) argues that there are no breaks in the adoption or
chasms. Moore (1999) and Chris agree that due to the different nature of the two
groups there is a gap where 3D printing could fail in its adoption due to its complex
nature. This makes a case that the innovation characteristics discussed will not have
the same application and meaning when applying them to look at movement from
groups other than early adopters to early majority.
The research in this area has shown that from the experts within the field of 3D
printing they feel that the application of the diffusion of innovations is highly
applicable. Further discussions surrounding the diffusion of innovations have shown
that some of the participants believe that the theory needs to be applied in
conjunction with other newer theories to make it more relevant. This potentially could
be a topic for further research to take place. These theories being Geoffrey Moore‟s
(1999) Chasm and Gartner‟s (2015) Hype Cycle. The overall consensus was that the
diffusion of innovations gives an insight into how the market moves and adoption
takes place. This means that looking into the innovation characteristics laid out will
28
provide valuable information on how this adoption could take place and what role they
will play. It also displayed that the characteristics applied and discussed will only be
relevant when looking at this stage of adoption rather than future adoption categories
due to the different use cases and use patterns needed for adoption to take place.
4.3 Relative Advantage
The relative advantage of consumer 3D printing was hard to discuss in a sense with
participants as the alternatives and competition is not obvious. Unlike a typewri ter
over a computer there is not direct descendant of 3D printing for the home as Chris
describes:
“There aren‟t alternatives, most people don‟t go to their shed and whittle stuff and do
metal work, it‟s not normal behaviour”
Chris describes consumer 3D printing as home fabrication and explains that the
advantage of this is the change in delivery timespan, the ability to produce in the
home and it changes where the product comes from. The closest rival to this Chris
believes is Amazon:
“Were already seeing the Amazonisation of stuff, where you can go from a digital
catalogue to something arriving at your home in a very short amount of time”
The materialisation of content in the home is something new and the relative
advantage it holds is something unseen before. The fact that Amazon can be a direct
29
competitor of a complex technology means that there's a whole new way in which
products are being delivered and competing. The advantages discussed by other
participants are more traditional in their approach to comparing the technology. Paul,
Filemon and Charlotte talk about the advantage that consumer 3D printing has over
current manufacturing methods as a direct alternative. The relative advantages are
based in where value can be found such as the ability to customise complex products
and complete small objects with minimal waste. These findings are similar with
current literature where discussion of 3D printing‟s relative advantage is compared
with manufacturing methods (Campbell et al., 2011).
Relative advantage is deemed the strongest of the five innovation characteristics at
predicting the adoption of a new technology according to diffusion theory (Rogers,
2003). The fact that the relative advantage is not currently obvious to consumer
means that it is in fear of being lost to the early majority. The relative advantage of 3D
printing is discussed by most of the participants within the context of the early majority
that it provides them a device which gives a new way of creating products in the
home. Chris furthers this idea that the early majority will want something that
entertains them similarly to a games console. The way in which a 3D printer works is
described by Chris:
“It is akin to a games console, it creates a physical object and works as a media
playback device”
30
The shift from home fabrication machine to media playback device shows that the
relative advantage of 3D printing is constantly shifting as it looks to find its place in
the early majority. The diverse nature of the relative advantages of consumer 3D
printing means it plays a role within the movement from early adopter to early majority
with 75% of the participants saying it is of importance for this to take place. The early
majority deliberates on adopting a technology for double the time as the early
adopters, the more advantages a technology offers the more likely adoption will take
place (Rogers 2003). The issue stands through this research that this advantage is
not seemingly clear to the early majority but the relative advantage although unclear
is still heavily beneficial for early majority adoption. A device which can give
consumers a physical customisable and complex product created from seemingly
nothing and with minimal cost in a range of materials (plastic, metal, conductive
materials, wood, bamboo and many others). This proves that the role of relative
advantage is key but the way in which it is transcended is not addressed by Rogers
(2003).
4.4 Compatibility
The literature review explained that compatibility as a characteristic whe n applied
identified that intellectual property was something holding consumer 3D printing back
from the early majority (Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe, 2010). The research has
confirmed these findings with the participants in every interview bringing up
31
intellectual property as an issue for adoption to take place. Filemon outlined this
unclear and incompatible area:
“The current state of law is not compatible with the way 3D printing will be used. I
don‟t expect 3D printing to change, I expect law to change. I fear that law will be a
late follow in this system.”
Filemon explained that technology would move forward whether the law wants it to or
not in the same way that music has evolved. The way in which to fix this Filemon said
was to create a compatible system to break this potential behaviour of piracy due to
the laws slow nature. Similarly to the way in which video and music piracy was
combated with legal streaming services like Spotify and Netflix something similar is
needed for consumer 3D printing to give a higher sense of compatibility with the early
majority who have been shown to warm to these services. This falls under Rogers
(2003) compatibility of values, as if early adopters cannot access compatible content
legally this may not be in line with their beliefs.
When looking at the innovation characteristics it is important to look at those who are
creating the machines themselves, as they are a huge part of how a technology is
formed and viewed. This is due to them being responsible for how these innovation
characteristics exist to an extent as they design and manufacture the product. This is
an area not covered in the literature on this topic. Chris focused on this and the
manufacturer's role with compatibility and how the early majority need to be
understood:
32
“Some of the manufacturers understand but a lot of them don‟t, a lot of them are very
fixated on the maker movement still…companies are starting to realise they need to
talk to an audience in a different way”
The fixation on the current adoption group is causing manufacturers to not see the
importance of making their product compatible to the early majority. Chris does go on
to say that the some of the major manufacturers such as 3D systems are looking at
how they can talk to that audience with consumerism in mind. 3D systems is now
putting content on their software licensed from Martha Stewart and Sesame Street
which holds mass market appeal. This battle for licensing Chris also addresses
means companies will fight it out to offer compatible brands which talk to people‟s
consumer needs on an exclusive basis. So the stretch by manufacturers to become
too compatible could limit the adoption as a whole, due to people having products not
available on all 3D printer brands thanks to manufacturers fighting it out with
licensors. This effort falls within the capability for needs of the innovation, which is a
subcategory of compatibility laid out by Rogers (2003). With manufacturers focusing
on those who have already adopted the technology it is excluding and ostracising
those potential first early majority from adoption. Charlotte furthered this point by
explaining that current compatibility issues around content and the way in which
printers are compatible with people‟s everyday lives would leave the early majority
understandably cautious The research has shown that some manufacturers are
starting to see the importance of compatibility as they provide printers with compatible
content, compatible printers. The issue still remains though, of having an
33
incompatible legal framework in which to use these devices in a mass consumer
market, which is important to the early majority. Especially as manufacturers look to
licensing as a form of compatibility provision to the early majority. This would be
counterintuitive as the more exclusive deals done the more it pushes people to piracy
an area which the early majority is uncertain about. The positive correlation of
compatibility is then under question as it can move both way and not exclusively
positive like Rogers (2003) explains.
4.5 Complexity
The research has shown that all participants have stated concerns on the complexity
of consumer 3D printing machines holding it back from adoption by the early majority.
The complexity of consumer 3D printing machines can be broken down into two
areas; software and hardware. Paul describes the complexities that consumers face
when buying a machine:
“New buyers and those with little experience (early majority) with 3D modelling or the
industry will find purchasing a machine a minefield. The level of fragmentation...has
reached critical mass”
Paul is talking about the current market for 3D printers here, that there is no market
leader but hundreds of smaller brands fighting with completely different machines that
hold completely different usage guidelines. Charlotte supported this statement:
„if we continue to bob along in the ocean of uncertainty without making any changes
34
to solve the problems of complexity I can see the future for 3D printing looking bleak‟
The use of the word uncertainty here is especially related to the role complexity plays
in the adoption of the early majority. According to the Diffusion of Innovations
(Rogers, 2003) and other research (Moore, 1999) the early majority will always look
to avoid uncertainty before an adoption unlike the early adopter who adopt partially
for this reason. The complexity of the hardware leaves the early majority feeling
uncertain which will be a direct barrier to adoption.
When using a 3D printer, in order for the machine to work it needs to be given a
formatted file, which is processed through software, which slices it into layers so that
the machine can understand how the object will be built. The formatted file which the
printer uses is either downloaded from an online site and or created using the many
CAD programs available. The issues surrounding the software is outlined by Paul:
„software in respect to content creation can be near impregnable and simpler software
is hugely limiting on content creation‟
You have here two polar opposites whereby you either have far too complex software
which would not be uti lised by the early majority or it is so simple it will not create
objects worth creating. Chris follows this up by saying software is „built by engineers,
for engineers‟ and the focus should be on files which are already pre sliced and ready
to print for the early majority. The early majority are assumed by Rogers (2003) to be
less educated and therefore the simpler the technology the easier it is for adoption to
take place. Charlotte confirms that there currently is a lack of a full solution that takes
an idea or digital idea all the way through to an end product. Charlotte calls for a
35
unification of the bridge between software to hardware for the early majority to take
hold and adopt as it gives a more user centric feel to 3d printing. The fi le repositories
utilised by the early adopters outlined by Ratto and Ree (2012) therefore would not
really be applicable to the early majority who want a process which is more seamless
than the rigmarole of current methods.
Complexity is not considered to be as an important characteristic compared to relative
advantage and compatibility in innovation characteristics research (Tornatzky and
Klein, 1982). This research disagrees with this literature as with a technology which
contains so many variables and a high level of uncertainty it is crucial to the success
of early majority adoption. Charlotte describes it as „One of the most important factors
to mass market introduction‟ and Paul also confirms this by describing it as „critical‟ to
mass early majority adoption.
4.6 Trialability
The next characteristic that was discussed was Trialability. The participants of the
interview displayed mixed emotions about the prevalence or necessity of trying items
before purchase. Paul explained that the well informed nature and the way in which
we buy goods has changed from being a process which we are actively involved with
in the first person to an online experience. Paul goes onto to say that buyers wi ll do
all their research and purchasing online calling it just a relatively important
characteristic. This shift in buying experience outlined is showing that there is distinct
change in the way we buy goods now than when the Diffusion of Innovations was
36
written which has not been addressed by Rogers. Chris goes on from this point
highlighting the importance of retailers with this technology expecting for this trial to
take place in stores due to the nature of how the early majority shop. This goes
against Paul‟s statement of an online based experience for purchasing decisions. The
theory states that earlier adopters perceive trialability as more important than late
adopters this is due to the earlier adopter acting as the trialists for the late majority
(Rogers, 2003). There is an expansion strategy by retailers such Home Depot,
Staples and Walmart and in the UK Rymans now stocking printers. It shows a clear
understanding that the early majority is a group which needs to trial the product first.
Chris states that the early majority will be timid and they‟ll want to see it:
“A DVD player looked like a mixture between a cd player and a VHS, you could
understand it. These machines aren‟t like anything you have ever seen before, you
will want to as an early majority customer to see demonstration.”
The fact consumer 3D printing is a technology, which is so far distant from anything
seen before means that trialability plays a vital role in its adoption. With the tendency
for the early majority to want to test their products first this means that the movement
is dependent on retailers. Chris explains that if consumer 3D printing is to go from the
early adoption stage to the early majority it wi ll depend heavily on the early tranche of
retailers that adopt it. This intertwining between adoption by the consumer and
adoption by those that form consumer decisions is vital to breaking into the early
majority. Previously the early adopters were dependent by their own personal interest
and motivation to try something new whereas the early majority especially in
37
consumer 3D printing is evidently dependent on the adoption of others first. In this
case the early majority‟s ability to trial 3D printing is based on the adoption of retailers
who base their judgment from the early majority creating a cycle of uncertainty until
someone decides to move forward. There is a two way relationship taking place
between the early adopters and early majority whereby, the trialing by the early
adopter can reshape the product for the next adoption stage. This embracement by
the maker community to the early majority makes the innovation transfer easier as the
technology matures creating fewer barriers to adoption.
4.7 Observability
With the evolution of technology and the internet, the results of innovations are no
longer just experienced first hand. Products and Technologies are made and
presented in a variety of forms to consumers. According to Rogers (2003) the
observability of 3D printing should be clear as it is embodied in the items it creates
and therefore clearly displays its results. The issue that consumer 3D printing
currently faces when it comes to observability is that the current mass media
depiction is not showing consumer relatable stories. All four of the participants
highlighted different examples of how the media has taken the technology to the
extreme with its representation which hasn‟t allowed for the consumer benefits to be
seen. Charlotte highlighted that she is continually asked questions about the 3D
printing gun; Chris says the media still sees it as a novelty and Paul feels the
38
depiction is currently only medical miracles. The issue this element of observability
represents is the creation of an innovative and excited product which gets lost due to
its depiction. Chris explained that:
“It‟s one of those things were until someone shows some really good case studies or
has a really good mass market proposition then you‟ll carry on getting stories about
guns and robotic hands which aren‟t mass market stories which confuses the early
majority”
This creates a contradiction in Rogers (2003) view of observability having a positive
relationship with adoption. The results of this innovation are heavily covered by the
media currently but yet it is that coverage holding it back, as the early majority cannot
see a clear use for this technology. Charlotte goes onto say that these use cases
which can create a positive relations between observability and adoption need to be
ones which present products in their own right that „don‟t need the created by a 3D
printer tag‟. This shift from gimmick objects to real world items needs to be observed
in order for the early majority to adopt the technology. Consumer 3D printing is
currently not represented as an attractive proposition for the early majority; Chris puts
the onus of this on the manufacturers stating that they are not coming up with mass-
market stories. This shows that observability is a far more complex area than just the
observations of potential adopters but include how this message is conveyed.
Tornatzky and Klein (1982) found that communicability was the natural progression
basing itself around how a technology is conveyed.
Filemon took a different approach to analysing the role of observability and explains
39
how its current depiction in the media is incredibly predictable. He views consumer
3D printing as an exponential technology which begins its progress on a linear curve:
“When you introduce a new exponential technology the expectations rise to this
exponential level, so everyone is expecting exponential growth”
This is where the issue lies in this expectation as the media set it so high
disappointment become disillusionment for the early majority. Filemon goes onto say
„further down the exponential line the hype gets switched back on as you hit the later
stages of development where instead of a 2+2 4+4 situation you get a 128+128
256+256‟. This is where the technology is making such big strides It cannot be
ignored by the early majority.
4.8 The importance of innovation characteristics and adoption
When conducting the research It was decided that it would be of value to find out
which characteristics were considered the most important by the participants. In
previous innovation characteristic studies providing the most important characteristics
let has been shown that it creates useful information for industries to utilise (Arts,
Frambach and Bijmolt, 2011). Throughout the research findings all of the
characteristics have been shown to be of direct relevance for the adoption by the
early majority. All the participants felt that the early adoption stage we are currently in
40
is still evolving and therefore movement to the early majority has not been prevalent
in the innovation characteristics yet. The current climate of products, services and
machines is not user centric enough to be attractive to the early majority. The
characteristic, which was deemed most important by 75% of participants to the
adoption by the early majority, was „Observability‟. Current academic literature has
always considered observability to be a secondary factor in adoption due to it being
considered to not represent the innovation directly (Agarwal and Prasad, 1997)
(Dearing, 2008) (Greenhalgh et al., 2005). This research goes against this summary,
saying that due to the unknown nature of 3D printing and the way it works consumer
perception and their observed benefits need to be addressed. The idea of printing a
3D object from a machine is so new to consumers that the other characteristics get
pushed to the background. The potential adopters need to be shown how the
machine relates to their lives and daily use. This is an area covered by the model of
technology acceptance by Davis (1989) stating that perceived usefulness is a major
factor in adoption. This shows that more current technology adoption models
understand that the way in which we perceive (observe) technology better than
Rogers model. The research shows that this is especially prevalent when looking at
the move from the early adopter to the early majority. Chris goes onto explain the
importance of observability:
“I think you need to be able to see it and it needs to be real…there‟s no normal
people doing normal things”
This statement shows that at the moment the observable benefits of consumer 3D
41
printing are not portrayed to the early majority clearly. Without the early majority
seeing these user stories that relate to them then conversations cannot happen which
inspire adoption. There's now a movement away from the importance of directly
based innovation characteristics such as compatibility and relative advantage. With
the role of the media and those around us playing such a major factor now in how we
adopt technology, the observable benefits through this research have been shown to
offer more reasons for adoption than the product itself. The reason why observability
is considered so in important is the fact it reduces the level of uncertainty surrounding
a product. If a product works then that‟s great but if it isn‟t observably certain at doing
what it is supposed to do an early majority will not adopt it.
One participant wholeheartedly disagreed with this notion that observability had a
major role to play in adoption. Filemon felt that:
“I don‟t believe these social adoption things such as observability play a role, if it
works it will fly. So in the end I think it would be the relative advantage (most
important)...I truly don‟t believe that social activity is key here it‟s just an illusion”
Filemon argument makes sense; it shows how all of these innovation characteristics
are intertwined. If a product simple, compatible with their lifestyle and gives benefits
that the consumer wants then it will sell. The issue here is that the emotions and
social system in which these consumers operate is not accounted for hence the
inclusion by Rogers (2003) of trialability and observability. With an adoption group
such as the early majority the product itself is incredibly important but as shown by
the other participants being able to observe the way it works and what it can do for
42
you can mean more. When manufacturers and those in the consumer 3D printing
space can show the early majority reasons to make and decrease the fear in
purchasing then the early majority will begin to adopt. The way they do this is to make
the technology relatable through the observation of what it can do for them.
5. Conclusion
The research has shown an application of the theory of diffusion looking at in
particular how the role of the early adopter has an integral part to play more than the
literature currently outline. The early adopters are helping to create and mould the
innovation characteristics for the early majority. The groups are treated as
independent adopters who are placed categorically based on their propensity to
adopter new technology, what is not laid out in the literature is how their adoption
affects that of the early majority. Without the maker movement (early adopters)
continual tinkering, development and shaping of the consumer 3D printer the ability
for the early majority to adopt would be completely different. The innovation itself
43
changes and the application the theory of diffusion shows that there are clear groups
which help to evaluate what areas need to be worked on in order for mass adoption to
take place. Current focus through this research has shown that manufacturers are still
currently focused on the early adopters with the shift to the early majority slowly
taking shape. The issue this poses is that the message being sent out currently is one
which does not appeal to the early majority.
Future research could look into other industries currently in the early adopter stage to
see if the same results are found. The importance of observability within future
research could be looked at to see if it is of the same significance in other
technologies adoption. The methodology could be applied and potentially increased
as having only four participants is a limitation the research. This would make it
possible to compare and contrast results.
All of the innovation characteristics have been shown to have some role in the
diffusion of consumer 3D printing, with observability the number one factor. The other
characteristics have been exhibited through the research that they play different roles
than suggested, with the positive correlation of certain characteristics not being
exclusively one way. It has also been found that the progression of certain
characteristics is based on those that manage them. This two way relationship of the
characteristics and the adopter group helping move the innovation forward,
something that has not been recognised in Rogers (2003) theory. The application of
44
them has shown the adoption barriers in place stopping the early majority from
adopting the technology. The relative advantage is unclear, the compatibility of
machines needs to be more open, machines are currently far too complex, there is
currently not enough access to machines and the observable results are lost in the
social system around it. The early adopters are the ones creating the content for the
devices which in turn gives relevance to the technology in people's lives. This
research has shown giving people the ability to observe the benefits of a product
through this content is the key to success of early majority adoption. This proves that
Rogers (2003) innovation characteristics help to show what is important for adoption
but does fail to help recognise how those characteristics can change over the
adoption cycle. Consumer 3D printing will make the move to the early majori ty when
manufacturers and the maker movement begin to mould these characteristics to fit
the early majority.
45
References
Agarwal, R. and Prasad, J. (1997). The Role of Innovation Characteristics and
Perceived Voluntariness in the Acceptance of Information Technologies. Decision
Sciences, 28(3), pp.557-582.
Arts, J., Frambach, R. and Bijmolt, T. (2011). Generalizations on consumer innovation
adoption: A meta-analysis on drivers of intention and behaviour. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 28(2), pp.134-144.
Balderton.com, (2014). 3D Hubs raises $4.5M Series-A funding, led by Balderton
Capital, to bring local 3D printing to your doorstep | Balderton.. [online] Available
at: http://www.balderton.com/news/3d-hubs-raises-4-5m-series-a-funding-led-by-
balderton-capital-to-bring-local-3d-printing-to-your-doorstep- [Accessed 15 Apr.
2015].
Bass, F. (1969). A New Product Growth for Model Consumer Durables. Management
Science, 15(5), pp.215-227.
Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A. and Haufe, P. (2010). The intellectual property implications
of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd, 7(1), pp.5-31.
Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business research methods. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
46
Burnett, M. and Brooks, R. (2013). The maker movement. Black Enterprise., 44(1),
pp.28-29.
Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O. and Garrett, B. (2011). Could 3D Printing
Change the World? Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive
Manufacturing. Strategic Foresight Report. [online] Washington: Atlantic Council.
Available at:
https://info.aiaa.org/SC/ETC/MS%20SubCommittee/Alice%20Chow_3D%20Printi
ng%20Change%20the%20World_April%202012.pdf [Accessed 13 Apr. 2015].
Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User
Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), p.319.
Dearing, J. (2008). Evolution of Diffusion and Dissemination Theory. Journal of Public
Health Management and Practice, 14(2), pp.99-108.
Department for Education, (2013). 3D printers in school. London: Department for
Education, pp.1-24.
Doherty, D. (2012). Downloading Infringement: Patent Law as a Roadblock to the 3d
Printing Revolution. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 26(1), pp.353-373.
Flight, R., D'Souza, G. and Allaway, A. (2011). Characteristics‐ based innovation
adoption: scale and model validation. Jnl of Product & Brand Mgt, 20(5), pp.343-
355.
Gartner, (2013). Gartner Says Early Adopters of 3D Printing Technology Could Gain
47
an Innovation Advantage Over Rivals. [online] Available at:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2388415 [Accessed 19 Apr. 2015].
Gartner, (2014). Gartner Says Worldwide Shipments of 3D Printers to Reach More
Than 217,000 in 2015. [online] Available at:
http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2887417 [Accessed 3 Apr. 2015].
Gartner.com, (2014). Gartner Says Consumer 3D Printing Is More Than Five Years
Away. [online] Available at: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2825417
[Accessed 29 Apr. 2015].
Gartner.com, (2015). Hype Cycle Research Methodology | Gartner Inc.. [online]
Available at: http://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-
cycle.jsp [Accessed 29 Apr. 2015].
Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., Kyriakidou, O. and Peacock, R.
(2005). Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative
approach to systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 61(2), pp.417-430.
Kaur Kapoor, K., K. Dwivedi, Y. and D. Williams, M. (2014). Innovation adoption
attributes: a review and synthesis of research findings. European Journal of
Innovation Management, 17(3), pp.327-348.
Labay, D. and Kinnear, T. (1981). Exploring the Consumer Decision Process in the
Adoption of Solar Energy Systems. Journal of Consumer Research, 8(3), p.271.
Lahart, J. (2015). Tinkering Makes Comeback Amid Crisis. [online] WSJ. Available at:
48
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB125798004542744219 [Accessed 5 May 2015].
Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2005). The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source
and Beyond.Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), pp.99-120.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Bass, F. (1995). Diffusion of New Products: Empirical
Generalizations and Managerial Uses. Marketing Science, 14(3_supplement),
pp.G79-G88.
Mahajan, V., Muller, E. and Srivastava, R. (1990). Determination of Adopter
Categories by Using Innovation Diffusion Models. Journal of Marketing Research,
27(1), p.37.
Milkert, H. (2015). Mainstream 3D Printing Adoption: Four reasons we aren’t there
yet. [online] 3DPrint.com. Available at: http://3dprint.com/2827/mainstream-3d-
printing-adoption/ [Accessed 9 Apr. 2015].
Moore, G. (1999). Crossing the chasm. New York: Harper Business.
Mota, C. (2011). The rise of personal fabrication. In: C&C '11 Proceedings of the 8th
ACM conference on Creativity and cognition. New York: C&C '11 Proceedings of
the 8th ACM conference on Creativity and cognition, pp.278-288.
Plsek, P. and Greenhalgh, T. (2001). Complexity science: The challenge of
complexity in health care.BMJ, 323(7313), pp.625-628.
Raconteur, (2014). 3D Printing. [online] London. Available at: http://raconteur.net/3d-
printing [Accessed 10 Apr. 2015].
49
Ratto, M. and Ree, R. (2012). Materializing information: 3D printing and social
change. First Monday, 17(7).
Robinson, J. (2014). The consumer 3D printing market should explode, just not for
ages. [online] PandoDaily. Available at: http://pando.com/2014/02/12/the-
consumer-3d-printing-market-should-explode-just-not-for-ages/ [Accessed 9 Apr.
2015].
Robinson, L. (2012). Changeology. New York: UIT Cambridge Ltd.
Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press.
Ryan, B. (1948). A Study in Technological Diffusion. Rural Sociology, 13(3), pp.273-
285.
Ryan, B. and Gross, N. (1943). The diffusion of hybrid seed corn in two Iowa
communities. Rural Sociological Society, 8(1).
Shin, D. and Lee, C. (2011). Disruptive innovation for social change: how technology
innovation can be best managed in social context. Telematics and Informatics,
28(2), pp.86-100.
Tongco, M. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant selection. Ethnobotany
Research and Applications, 5, pp.147-158.
50
Tornatzky, L. and Klein, K. (1982). Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: A meta-analysis of findings. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, EM-29(1), pp.28-45.
Valente, T. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social
Networks, 18(1), pp.69-89.
Wallop, H. (2013). With 3D printers, you can change the world (or at least mend a
train set). [online] Telegraph.co.uk. Available at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10356352/With-3D-printers-you-can-
change-the-world-or-at-least-mend-a-train-set.html [Accessed 15 Apr. 2015].
Zolkepli, I. and Kamarulzaman, Y. (2015). Social media adoption: The role of media
needs and innovation characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, pp.189-
209.
Zurcher, A. (2014). The disruptive power of 3D printing - BBC News. [online] BBC
News. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-26755692
[Accessed 1 May 2015].
51
6. Appendices
6.1 Appendix A - interviewee profiles
Participant 1
Name: Chris Thorpe
Occupation: Chief Executive Officer at I Can Make
Experience:
Chris formerly was formerly the Chief Technical Officer at one of the largest
children’s entertainment companies in the UK Moshi Monsters and then world-
renowned The Scientist magazine. He then worked with companies like The
Guardian, Myspace, Vogue and Justgiving.com as a consultant. In 2014 he founded
I Can Make who create 3D printing related educational material and have won
awards from Richard Branson and pitched at Buckingham Palace.
Participant 2
Name: Paul Sohi
Occupation: Founder at 2052, Autodesk - Technical Evangelist
Experience:
Paul is a 3D printing specialist and product designer. As founder of Product design
studio 2052 he has worked on projects for such companies as Microsoft and is in
charge of one of the country’s largest makerspaces (Makerversity) 3d printing
workshops. He is now currently a Technical Evangelist for the one of the largest
computer aided design companies in the world Autodesk due to his insight and
knowledge of the 3D printing space.
Participant 3
Name: Charlotte Downs
52
Occupation: Head of Finance at Cinter, Chief Organiser of 3D Printing Meetup
Experience:
Charlotte is Co-founder and Head of Finance for engineering and design consultancy
Cinter. With Cinter Charlotte has worked on 3D printing projects varying from Gin
Bottle to motorcycle helmets. She is also the organiser of the biggest 3D printing
meetup in London bringing together people of all background to get them engaged
with the technology.
Participant 4
Name: Filemon Schoffer
Occupation: Head of Community at 3D Hubs
Experience:
Filemon is the Head of Community for Amsterdam/New York based 3D Hubs.
Filemon is in charge of the 3D Hubs community who are the largest decentralised
production network in the world, with over 15,000 machines subscribed to their
platform. They provide accessible 3D printing with 10 miles of 1 billion people all
around the world with their network of 3D printers.
.
53
6.2 Appendix B - interview questions
Please tell me about yourself with regard to the 3D printing world and what you do?
Where do you feel consumer 3d printing (FDM and home based machines) lies on the scale on
the brief (Innovators, Early Adopters, Early Majority, Late majority, Laggards?
Do you think the theory of diffusion is relevant to consumer 3d printing‟s adoption (the idea of
technology spreading through a subset group)?
Relative advantage
What is consumer 3d printing‟s relative advantage over current manufacturing methods?
How important is it?
What role will this play in the early majority adopting this technology?
Compatibility
Is consumer 3D printing compatible with potential adopters values, past experiences and
needs?
How important is it?
What role will this play in the early majority adopting this technology?
Complexity
What is the level of complexity is involved with consumer 3d printing?
How important is it?
What role will this play in the early majority adopting this technology?
Trialability
What is access like to consumer 3D printers for consumers to trial them?
How important is it?
What role will this play in the early majority adopting this technology?
Observability
How is consumer 3D printing and its use currently portrayed to consumers?
How important is it?
What role will this play in the early majority adopting this technology?
Conclusion
Do you see consumer 3d printing making the move from early adopter to the early majority?
Please explain why? Out of the five characteristics discussed (Relative Advantage,
Compatibility, Observability,
Trialability, Complexity) which do you feel are/is the most important for the adoption of
consumer 3D printing?
