# Presentation: 157140

## Context of Implementation

- Definition: Innovation is “an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption” (Rogers, pg. 11).
- Definition: Innovation process is “the temporal sequence of events that occur as people interact with others to develop and implement their innovation ideas within an institutional context” (Van de Ven et al, pg. 32).

## Conceptual Model of Implementation

## Characteristics of Innovations Related to Adoption (Rogers, pp. 15-16)

- Advantage – degree to which innovation is perceived as better than what it replaces.
- 2. Compatibility – degree to which innovation is consistent with existing values, past experiences, and needs of potential adopters.
- 3. Complexity – degree to which innovation is perceived as difficult to understand and use.
- 4. Trialibility – degree to which innovation can be experimented with on small basis.
- 5. Observability – degree to which results of innovation are visible to others.

## Summary of Reviews

## Rogers: Organizational Characteristics Associated with Innovation (pp. 379-382) 

## Damanpour: Metaanalysis of Relationship Between Innovation and Organizational Characteristics 

## Damanpour: Metaanalysis of Relationship Between Innovation and Organizational Characteristics (continued)

## Meyer and Goes: Contextual Analysis of Assimilation of Innovations in Hospitals 

## Meyer and Goes: Contextual Analysis of Assimilation of Innovations in Hospitals (continued)

## Summary of Reviews

## Summary (continued)

## Summary (continued)

## Summary (continued)

## Summary (continued)

## Summary (continued)

## Conceptual Model of Implementation Measurement

## Change Process Perspectives

## Measures Across Levels

- A.  Initiation
- 	1.  Perceived performance gap
- 		a. Who defines
- 		b. How great
- 		c. How urgent
- 	2. Awareness of different approach
- 		a. Who
- 		b. Depth
- 		c. Source and credibility
- 			1. Evidence based literature
- 			2. Anecdotal
- 	3. Commitment
- 		a. Key stakeholder
- 		b. Public
- 		c. Specific
- 			1. Timeline
- 			2. Outcome
- 			3. Resources

## Measures Across Levels (continued)

- B. Implementation
- 	1. Authority
- 	2. Accountability
- 	3. Managerial support
- 	4. Perception of need
- 	5. Level of enthusiasm
- 	6. Peer support
- 	7. Competing demands

## Measures Across Levels (continued)

- 	8. Impact on other activities - unintended consequences
- 	9. Self-efficacy/potency
- 	10. Access to resources
- 		a. staff time – including own time
- 		b. materials – physical supplies
- 		c. information
- 			1. procedures / documentation
- 			2. training, role playing
- 			3. methods /expertise to address problems
- 			4. feedback on progress / adherence – in relatively real time
- 			5. feedback on effects – in relatively real time

## Van de Ven et al.: Factors Measured in Minnesota Innovation Research Program (pp. 36, 37, 56)

- A. Survey Measures:
- 	1. Innovation idea
- 		a. uncertainty
- 		b. difficulty
- 		c. variability
- 		d. novelty
- 		e. scope/size
- 		f. stage
- 	2. People
- 		a. Decision influence
- 		b. Leadership
- 		c. Individual competence
- 		d. Time allocation

## Van de Ven et al.: Factors Measured in Minnesota Innovation Research Program (continued) 

- 	3. Internal Transactions
- 		a. Standardization of procedures
- 		b. Workload pressure
- 		c. Communication frequency
- 		d. Conflict frequency and resolution methods
- 	4. External Group Transactions
- 		a. Dependence
- 		b. Formalization
- 		c. Mutual influence
- 		d. Perceived effectiveness
- 		e. Duration of relationship
- 		f. Complementarity
- 		g. Consensus/conflict
- 		h. Communication frequency

## Van de Ven et al.: Factors Measured in Minnesota Innovation Research Program (continued)

- 	5. Organizational Context
- 		a. Organizational risk taking
- 		b. Freedom to express doubts
- 		c. Change of rewards and sanctions
- 		d. Resource scarcity
- 	6. Outcomes
- 		a. Perceived effectiveness
- 		b. Perceived innovation problems