Principles of Innovation and Change
1. To provide a common basis of definitions and terms.
2. To provide an understanding of the complexity of innovation
and change and the importance of the human element.
3. To explain the variety of approaches that can be used to implement
Participants in the Process of Change
Barriers to Innovation and Change
Technology Transfer, The Hard Lessons
Some Basic Rules of Change
Centralized vs. Decentralized Diffusion Systems
Approaches to Innovation and Change
Examples of Technology Transfer Programs
The U.S. General Accounting Office provides this definition: "Technology
may be broadly defined as the knowledge, skills, methods, and techniques
used to accomplish specific practical tasks." Thus, technology is
more than just methods and materials; in the broader context it also includes
the people, policies, and procedures which ensure its application.
The National Science Foundation defines innovation as "a technology new
to a given organization". Thus, technologies do not necessarily have
to be new to be innovative, but are new to the organization.
Research is the creation of new knowledge. Research is defined by
Hartgen as follows: "Research involves critical investigation, evaluation,
or experiment with the purpose of revising currently accepted conclusions
and/or improving practice or procedures in the line of new facts or insights."
The term "technology transfer" refers to all activities leading to adoption
of a new product or procedure by any group of users. "New" is used
in a special sense: it means any improvement over existing technologies
or processes, not necessarily a chronologically recent invention.
Technology transfer is not simply dissemination of information and passively
awaiting its use. Technology transfer is an active term. It
implies interaction between technology sponsors and users and results in
The act of providing information about technology change through various
written, and audiovisual techniques. Dissemination simply means that
material is distributed to prospective users for them to evaluate and use
as they see fit. Dissemination is almost always a one-way process
with little user feedback or follow-up about how the material was used.
The spread of an idea, method, practice, or product throughout a social
system. This generally occurs gradually as some users wait to see
how it has worked for others before they are willing to adopt a new method.
Communication patterns, especially one-to-one encounters, are a key element
in determining how fast or how far a new method spreads.
An individual who is willing to take risks by adopting "new" methods, products,
or practices which are not widely used at the time of adoption. Such a
person can also be referred to as an early adopter because of a willingness
to take the risks associated with new methods.
The deliberate linking of people to promote the exchange of ideas, and
the establishment of direct contacts among people with similar problems,
to promote a general increase in information flow.
A person who encourages and supports the adoption of new technology or
innovations. Such a person usually acts as an intermediary between the
source of information and the ultimate user. Some examples are University
Extension agents in agriculture, product salesmen or brokers.
Technology transfer intermediaries:
Individuals who serve varied functions between applied researchers and
users. The functions include translating technical material into
simple language, linking potential adopters with experts, and facilitating
the two-way flow of information between users and developers of new ideas.
The adaptation or modification of an innovation which takes account of
existing environmental/organizational conditions.
Technoloqy Push vs. Pull:
A technology "push," also known as top down transfer, is diffusion from
higher levels of authority to lower levels. An example of "push"
is Federal efforts at technology transfer through legislation, regulation,
or policy. Entrepreneurs and other individuals or organizations whose
objectives are to implement a technology typically "push" in order to do
so. In marketing terms, the client is "sold" the technology.
A transfer "pull" is just the opposite, a bottom-up form of diffusion.
The client demands the technology. The search for innovation moves
up from the lower levels of an organization until it is accepted or addressed
and resolved by higher authorities
Another view of push vs. pull is that push represents innovation in
search of a problem or market, while pull results from a problem searching
for a solution. For example, consider the maintenance of public transportation
vehicles. Federal agencies could adopt a push approach by developing
improved techniques and then mandating their use or encouraging them through
training and information dissemination. An alternative pull approach
would be to have the transit agencies seek better methods to solve their
problems. The Federal role would then be to disseminate innovative
maintenance practices generated by the local agencies.
The movement of information on technology from top to bottom of an organization
or system of organizations. Vertical transfer follows an orderly
"chain of command" in the flow of information.
The movement of information on technology between people with a similar
class of jobs (peer-to-peer) within an organization or between similar
PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCESS OF CHANGE
People who do research also are sometimes involved in the transfer of information
to potential users of research. Their success depends on their ability
to understand user needs and to put the information in a form that users
People who encourage and support the adoption of new technology or innovation.
Such people act as intermediaries between the source of information and
the ultimate user. Some examples are university extension agents
for agricultural innovations, sales representatives and brokers.
Professional association officials may also act as change agents through
the studies and programs they sponsor.
Individuals or groups who are willing to take risks by adopting "new" methods,
products, or practices not widely in current use. These users are
called early adopters. They are a key to the diffusion of innovations
because they provide practical evidence that an innovation actually works
and this is important to later adopters. These users may frequently
create their own innovations in response to specific problems that they
Individuals who are slow to adopt new ideas and procedures. These
persons wait for others to try new methods before they will try them themselves.
Late adopters will not accept an idea unless their peers have done it first.
BARRIERS TO INNOVATION AND CHANGE
Many of the problems associated with change relate to poor communication.
Generally people won't try new things if they are not able to get "good"
information from someone they trust.
The innovation is not disseminated. Sometimes agencies never really bother
to disseminate their innovations other than to the sponsoring agency.
The innovation is disseminated to the wrong people. Results are sent
to people who are not in a position to use them. The information is not
referred to the proper person or somehow gets lost on the way.
The innovation is not understood by the potential user. If an innovation
is to be implemented it must be understood by those who are in a position
to facilitate implementation. When information is not presented in
the language of the user, it is unlikely that adoption will occur.
The innovation is not presented at the proper time. If an innovation
is presented at a point after a decision has been made and along with irrevocable
commitments then it may prove to be counterproductive in that it may cause
excessive delay or major conflicts on a particular project.
The innovation is disseminated in an unacceptable manner. The innovation
may be used to counter policies of an agency or be used to generate conflict
over the agency projects. In such a case an adversary situation develops
with negative results where a positive situation might have otherwise occurred
if the innovation were presented in a different manner.
The Problem has been poorly defined. Often this may occur when a
problem is defined with limited input from potential users. Research
and development personnel tend to define problems along disciplinary lines
with a goal of advancing levels of knowledge, while agency personnel tend
to define problems along policy lines with a goal of decision making.
The innovation is not valid. It may contain mistakes, or the conclusions
may have been improperly drawn. Internal validity is extremely difficult
to assess for anyone other than the innovator unless it is thoroughly and
The innovation is not relevant to the problems of the potential user.
The innovation does not address or properly articulate a problem as perceived
by the potential user. Quite often this occurs because the potential user
agency does not have an active role in problem definition.
The innovation is relevant. but the solutions proposed are not feasible
for the agency because of legal, institutional, financial, political or
Valid. implementable results are not presented to persons in policy making
The innovation may not be implemented because of constraints associated
with the organizational structures of implementation agencies.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: THE HARD LESSONS
Those who have worked at getting organizations have learned some lessons
over time, These are:
That people and organizations are naturally resistant to change.
That personal contact--the human element--is the most important factor
in innovation diffusion and adoption.
That personal contact--through one-to-one technical assistance and special
transfer agents--is expensive in the short run but immeasurably cost-effective
in the long run.
That effective communication of new ideas and techniques is best done through
multiple channels: people, newsletters, case study reports, professional
association networks, and publications. No single way will be enough.
That the experience and endorsement of peers is a very important element
in the widespread adoption of innovation and technology.
That acceptance of new technology takes time, a lot of work, and risk.
SOME BASIC RULES OF EFFECTIVE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
Rule 1: Communication is everything.
Rule 2: Technology transfer ain't easy.
Rule 3: If you build a better mousetrap, the world will not beat a path
to your door.
Rule 4: The most respected opinion is always that of your peers.
Rule 5 An unwilling user can always find a way to make an idea fail.
Rule 6: If it doesn't make your life a lot better, you won't want to do
Rule 7: Employees won't try anything that will cause them to lose their
Rule 8: Researchers prefer to bend problems to suit their methods.
Rule 9: Users of research prefer to bend methods to suit their problems.
Rule 10: Users always think that the researcher doesn't understand the
problem; researchers always think that the user doesn't understand the
Rule 11: A written report is never fully understood by anyone but its author.
Rule 12: The wrong person always gets the report.
Rule 13: A written report longer than 50 pages will never get read thoroughly.
Rule 14: Most people in local agencies don't read anything.
Rule 15: Showing and telling is more effective than just showing or just
CENTRALIZED AND DECENTRALIZED DIFFUSION SYSTEMS
Two systems exist for diffusion of innovation: centralized or decentralized.
Decision making in centralized systems is concentrated at a high level,
while decentralized systems feature wide sharing of power within the diffusion
network. In centralized systems diffusion is vertical--from the top
down, as innovations emerge from formal R&D projects. Decentralized
systems use horizontal diffusion, as local experimentation is often the
innovation source. Centralized systems favor technology push, where
"needs" are defined at a high level while decentralized systems use technology
pull, where needs are defined locally.
Innovations which cannot be easily modified or re-invented are best
diffused using a centralized system. Innovations which lend themselves
to modification are best diffused by a decentralized approach because such
an approach allows local adaptation of innovations to reflect local needs.
1. Overall control of decisions by national government administrators and
technical subject matter experts.
2. Diffusion from top down experts to local users of innovations.
3. Innovations come from formal R and D conducted by technical experts.
4. Decisions about which innovations should be diffused are made by
5. An innovation centered approach; technology push, emphasizing needs
created by the availability of the innovation.
6. A low degree of local adaptation and re-invention of the re-invention
of the innovations as they diffuse among adopters.
1. Wide sharing of power and control among the members of the diffusion
system; client control by local community leaders.
2. Diffusion innovations through horizontal networks of peers.
3. Innovations come from local experimentation by non-experts, who
often are users.
4. Local units decide which innovations should be innovations should
be diffused on the basis of their informal evaluations of the innovations.
5. A problem centered approach; technology pull, created by the locally
perceived needs and problems.
6. A high degree of local adaptation and re-invention of the innovations
as they diffuse among adopters.
APPROACHES TO INNOVATION AND CHANGE
Many approaches have been developed to describe the process of innovation
in organizations. They demonstrate two things. First, that
there is a variety of methods of change from centralized to decentralized
approaches. Secondly, current procedures have characteristics of
the several approaches and it is useful to examine the technology transfer
models as it relates to the others in order to understand the process.
The approaches described are the problem solver model, the research, development
and diffusion model, the social interaction model, and the national diffusion
Problem Solver Model
In the Problem Solver Model, client needs play the prominent role and information
is related to problem solving. The basic process is one of problem
identification, solution search, selection and then application.
Information is used (often haphazardly) at each individual step to assist
in carrying out the process. Outside change agents may assume the
role of problem solver and, to be successful, they must develop and maintain
a cooperative approach.
The Research, Development and Diffusion Process Approach
The R, D and D model forms the basis for much of the research activity
in Federal government departments and research laboratories. According
to this approach, research is justified because it creates new knowledge.
This view of technology transfer is based on the idea that "if the knowledge
is there, a use will be found for it."
While this process has been used by several agencies, the emphasis each
has placed on the different components has varied. A unique example
of the application of this approach is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
cooperative Extension Service. This approach is unique because of
its reliance on a decentralized network of county agents to diffuse information
on new technology and facilitate adoption. The R D and D approach
has not always produced effective results in other agencies. Without
a network for diffusion and feedback from users, it is difficult to understand
the needs of potential users or perform relevant R, D and D. Normally,
little is known about needs of users, since few systematic efforts are
conducted to match user needs with available technology.
The Social Interaction Approach
This approach to diffusion and utilization has received considerable attention
over the past 45 years. As its name implies, this approach emphasizes
analyzing the interaction between people in order to better describe information
flow. It concentrates on the diffusion of innovations throughout
social systems in which personal communication plays an important role.
Concepts such as opinion leader, early adopters, etc. are associated with
Resource and user organizations constitute the formal structure, and
groups of individuals make up the informal structure. The interplay
between formal and informal structure depends on the intensity of interpersonal
exchange of information. The greater the exchange, the more effective
the network will be. This approach describes how individuals exchange
information rather than how organizations can increase the adoption of
The National Diffusion Network Approach
The National Diffusion Network (NDN) model was established in 1974 by the
U.S. Office of Education to encourage the spread of innovative educational
programs among schools throughout the nation. This approach is interesting
because the innovations come from educational practices at the local level,
while the decisions to promote innovations are made by a centralized review
panel. Promising innovations are reviewed by a panel of experts;
those judged most effective are then made available to schools interested
in new approaches. The NDN makes use of two types of change agents:
developer/demonstrators and facilitators. Developers are persons who have
been involved in the development of the innovation and are funded by the
NDN to disseminate information about their program. Facilitators,
on the other hand, try to match potential local adopters with the appropriate
demonstrator. Working at the state level, facilitators identify educational
needs and provide interested schools with information on the exemplary
innovations that are available for adoption.
Facilitators in the NDN model function as change agents or intermediaries;
they are neither experts nor champions of any particular innovation.
Their responsibility is to inform local schools of the types of programs
the NDN offers and to link developers with interested school officials.
The FHWA Technology Transfer Approach
The model employed by the FHWA for technology transfer is a variation of
the Research, Development and Diffusion model discussed previously.
The FHWA model has undergone some recent changes that may eventually improve
its diffusion capacity. Technology transfer gained program emphasis
within the FHWA in the mid-70's. Regional and divisional offices
designated technology transfer specialists to coordinate such transfer
activities as the dissemination of report reviews and abstracts of films
and tapes to state departments of transportation. The FHWA requested
that each state designate a technology transfer specialist who was to receive
the information from the divisional technology transfer specialist.
EXAMPLES OF TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS
The last twenty years have seen the rise of deliberately designed technology
transfer programs. Many of these have been legislatively mandated
by a government concerned that it was not reaping the full benefits of
extensive research funding.
Among the many federal technology transfer programs to state and local
governments set up were:
-- Urban Observatory
-- National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice (LEAA)
Technology Transfer Program
-- Pilot cities Program (LEAA)
-- High Impact Anti-Crime Program (LEAA)
-- Federal Highway Administration, Implementation Division --Urban
-- California Four cities Program
-- Urban Consortium for Technology Initiatives (UCTI)
-- Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC)
-- Smithsonian Science Foundation Exchange
-- Integrated Municipal Information Systems Program
The 1980 Stevenson-Wydler Technology Act requires that federally operated
laboratories make a deliberate outreach effort to share their findings
and personnel skills with the public and private sectors. Each lab
must devote a certain percentage of its overall budget to directly funded
The Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC)
The Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer was formed in
1971 as an informal network of Department of Defense (DOD) laboratory representatives
who held periodic meetings on ways to disseminate DOD developed technology
to nonmilitary users. Today, the consortium has grown to include
over 150 laboratories that employ approximately 180,000 professionals located
in 34 states. Each FLC member laboratory has a technology transfer
coordinator who operates that laboratory's technology transfer program.
Technology transfer coordinators respond directly to requests for information,
services and equipment. They also try to bring practitioners with
problems together with others who have experience in solving similar problems.
The Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) has chosen a unique approach
to fulfilling the terms of the Act: the skills of laboratory personnel
are being treated as "technology" to be shared, even technological skills
that are not specifically job related. Thus, if a small business
or government agency needs help in introducing microcomputer technology
into its workplace, they can sometimes get help through qualified personnel
at federal laboratories, even though such work may not be part of their
actual job. To implement this program, the FLC has established a
training program for technology transfer agents at each facility.
The Ohio Technology Transfer Organization (OTTO)
In Ohio the Governors Office started the Ohio Technology Transfer Organization
(OTTO) in 1978. This program used technology transfer agents with
business and technical backgrounds located at community colleges throughout
the State. The success of this program relates to the fact that agents
were given a great deal of autonomy as to what technology to transfer,
what problems to help solve. The problem uses a computerized resource
index, as well as newsletters, seminars, workshops, and other training
programs. In 1982 agents logged 608 requests for help and processed
77 specific problems.
Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP)
One of the most difficult aspects of technology transfer programs is measuring
their effectiveness in a meaningful way. Since its inception in 1965,
the Pennsylvania Technical Assistance Program (PENNTAP) has been meticulously
trying to document the savings generated by its program. According
to 1982 figures, their total number of inquiries that year was 1,293 with
an average benefit ratio of 16:1. They estimate the economic savings
of their program to be in excess of $10,000,000.
One of the problems with comparing different technology transfer efforts
is that the formulas for measuring benefits vary drastically from program
to program. Standardizing cost benefit formulas for technology transfer
efforts would be the logical next step in federally coordinated technology
Rural Technical Assistance Project (RTAP)
Federal Highway's RTAP program is structured to include elements found
to be common to successful technology transfer projects. Its agents
publish regular newsletters and offer training programs for many different
levels of personnel and technologies. Most centers offer some kind
of one-to-one technical assistance in the field, at least to the extent
of having a hotline number for local people to call for help.
Structurally, RTAP is a hybrid, combining many of the characteristics
of the Problem Solving, the R, D and D and the National Diffusion Network
models. Its emphasis on meeting the needs of the local audience puts
a focus on the client that is typical of problem solving models; locating
most of the centers at universities puts an emphasis on research characteristic
of the R, D and D model. Tying the program to local State DOTs and
distributing it geographically as broadly as possible gives it a similarity
to the National Diffusion Network.
Elements of a Successful Program
James J. Jolly, the editor of the Journal of Technology Transfer, has isolated
four common elements that emerge from studying successful innovation programs
such as those described above:
1. A newsletter featuring technological innovation in products, processes,
2. An education program with seminars, workshops and training classes.
3. A one-on-one technical field agent that is a contact point for and
a promoter of the technological innovation in products, processes and services.
4. The surviving programs have kept good management records and can
demonstrate a substantial benefit to cost return on the operation of the
This information is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United States Department
Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, in the interest of information
exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use
The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or
manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the
contents of these reports.