A Review and Critique of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory as it Applies to Organizations

Abstract A topic of interest to many organizational researchers and practitioners is the understanding of how new ideas, processes, and products diffuse and spread within and across organizations. Rogers' research and theory on the diffusion of innovations addresses this topic, and is the subject of review and critique for this paper. The four primary elements of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory are described, with a special emphasis on how the theory applies within and across organizations. As a result of the critique of the theory, three key themes emerge. Introduction A topic of interest to many organizational researchers and practitioners is the understanding of how new ideas, processes, and products diffuse and spread within and across organizations. A common problem observed in the practice of organization development and performance improvement is the lack of spread or diffusion of these types of changes, or innovations. Often, an innovation or improvement is made, but that change is not adopted by other parts of the organization, nor in other organizations, for which there would be benefit. The lack of innovation diffusion in organizations is a problem and is the basis for this article. The intent of this article is to describe Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory, review and critique the theory specifically as it applies to organizations, and to discuss implications for those interested in further understanding the diffusion of innovation within and across organizations. The article is primarily intended for those in fields whose work engages in organizational improvement but whose theoretical base has not traditionally included diffusion of innovation theory, including human resource development, organization development, public health and health care, education, and information technology. Definitions It is helpful to begin the discussion with a review of definitions to be used throughout the paper, since there are varying interpretations and usages associated with the terms innovation, diffusion, and adoption by different researchers and practitioners, for example, by Rogers (1995), Kanter (1983), and Van de Ven (1989). This article does not focus on the creation of new ideas and innovations (i.e., invention), but rather on how these innovations, or new ideas, are spread to organizations and within organizations (not between individuals). This is not to say that individuals do not play an important role in diffusion of innovation within and across organizations; but rather, diffusion of innovation within and across organizations is a unique context for the diffusion of innovation,

and brings with it some distinctive elements and relationships. As a result, the working definition of diffusion of innovation for this paper is the adoption and implementation of new ideas, processes, products, or services, and the particular emphasis is diffusion of innovation within and across organizations. With this definition and emphasis in mind, the next section will be focused on understanding the importance of the diffusion of innovation within and across organizations. Importance of Diffusion of Innovation Researchers, theorists, and practitioners from many fields are interested in and affected by the diffusion of innovations within and across organizations, including organization development, education, management, health care and public health, information technology, and sociology (Damanpour, 1992; Johns, 1993; O'Neill, Pouder, & Buchholtz, 1998; Premkumar & Ramamurthy, 1994; Wright, Palmar, & Kavanaugh, 1995; Van de Ven & Poole, 1989). Many of these fields have a shared interest in organizational improvement, yet there is evidence that innovations often are not diffused within and across organizations to achieve improvement. A few examples illustrate the issue, and provide a background for why diffusion of innovation is an important topic from both theoretical and practice perspectives. In health care, new clinical and process advancements are continuously developed in research and practice settings, yet these innovations often take years, if not decades, to spread into wide use (Institute of Medicine, 2001). Process innovations are often low or no cost changes that a health care delivery organization can make, such as reminder systems, pathways, and clinical guidelines, yet they still do not find their way into practice. In the field of human resource (HR) management, there is ample evidence that HR practice often does not follow the most current industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology research, evidencing a lack of diffusion of these I/O psychology innovations within and across organizations. Johns (1993) cited multiple studies in recruiting, training, performance appraisal, and compensation that show I/O psychology innovations are not readily adopted and put into practice. In the education profession, educators are continuously developing new curricular and administrative approaches to improve education, yet the associated effort needed to ensure adoption of the innovation is often not made (Wright, Palmar, & Kavanaugh, 1995). The lack of diffusion of educational innovations means that teachers and others are not using the full range of practices and approaches to provide the best education possible. These examples illustrate the gap between the development of an innovation and the actual adoption and implementation of the innovation within and across organizations. With this background on the importance of diffusion of innovation, a description of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory follows. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory Everett Rogers (1962) is one of the preeminent researchers and theorists on the diffusion of innovation. Rogers' work over the past forty years has incorporated the work of many other innovation diffusion scholars into a diffusion of innovation theory; in fact, his current book has approximately 1,000 different citations from other scholars of published research and literature related to diffusion of innovation (Rogers, 1995). As a result, the description of the diffusion of

innovation theory that follows is attributed to Rogers, although his work includes and is built on the work of many others. Rogers' (1995) research and theory building work have primarily focused on diffusion of innovations among individuals, although he does address innovation diffusion within organizations. The overview of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory that follows describes the organizational perspective whenever possible, and addresses diffusion of innovations in organizations specifically at the end of the section. In Rogers' theory (1995), he identified the four main elements that come together to form the theory of diffusion of innovation: the innovation, communication, time, and the social system. Each element is briefly described, then summarized in Table 1. The Innovation An innovation, according to Rogers' theory (1995), is an idea, thing, procedure, or system that is perceived to be new by whomever is adopting it. The innovation does not need to be new in terms of being recently developed, it only needs to be new to the person or organization that is adopting and implementing it.
The characteristics of an innovation help to explain its rate of adoption by individuals. There are five characteristics that have been shown in innovation research to be linked to diffusion: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 1995). As each of these increases, it is hypothesized that the rate of adoption will increase (with the exception of complexity, for which a decrease is hypothesized to increase the rate of adoption). Relative advantage is the perceived improvement over whatever currently exists that the innovation will replace or enhance; the greater the perceived relative advantage is, the faster it will be adopted. Compatibility is the measure of how well the innovation aligns with the experiences, values, and needs of whomever is adopting the innovation; as a result, the greater the compatibility, the faster the adoption. Complexity relates to ease of understanding and use of an innovation; more simple ideas are adopted faster than more complex ideas. Trialability is the level at which an innovation adopter can test and asses the innovation before fully adopting and implementing; the more trialability, the less uncertainty, and the faster the adoption. Finally, observability is how visible the innovation is to others; and when an innovation is readily observable by those considering adoption, it is adopted faster.

Communication The second element of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory is communication, or the process by which people develop and share information with each other to achieve common understanding (Rogers, 1995). In diffusion theory, the communication process requires an innovation, a unit of adoption (individual or organization) that knows the innovation and has used it, other units of adoption who have not yet experienced the innovation, and a means or

channel of communicating between the two units. Most commonly, communication channels are either mass media, such as radio, television, or newspapers, or interpersonal channels, involving one-on-one communication between people. In Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory, there is an important relationship between the source of communication about the innovation and the rate of adoption. Research shows far less importance on the scientific or technical merits of the innovation itself than on how the potential adopter of the innovation views the person delivering the communication about the innovation the more similar the source of the information to the potential adopter, the faster the adoption of the innovation (Rogers, 1995). Diffusion of innovation is thus described as a social process, relying on effective communication between two or more individuals who perceive themselves to be similar in terms of beliefs, status, and education. Time Time is the third primary element of Rogers' theory. There are three components of the time element: the innovation-decision process, adopter categories, and the rate of adoption (Rogers, 1995). Innovation-decision process. The innovation-decision process encompasses the timeframe from when the potential adopter first becomes aware of the innovation through the point at which the potential adopter either adopts or rejects the innovation. There are five steps along this continuum: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation (Rogers, 1995). When the innovation-decision process occurs within an organization, there is more complexity as well as different stages of the innovation process. The five stages of the innovation process within an organization are: agenda-setting, matching, redefining/restructuring, clarifying, and routinizing. The first two stages (i.e., agenda-setting and matching) comprise the initiation phase, when information is gathering and planning occurs, after which the innovation is either adopted or rejected. If the innovation is adopted, the latter three stages comprise the implementation phase, or the actions and decisions involved in putting the innovation into practice within the organization. Adopter categories. Adopter categories are the second part of the time element of diffusion theory, and are a measure of how inclined an individual is to adopt new ideas as compared to other members of the social system. Adopter categories, as defined by Rogers (1995), are innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Innovators are those people who seek out and embrace innovations, are venturesome, and not afraid of risk. Early adopters are open to change, but are more closely connected to and respected within the social system, and are not quite so risky as innovators are in their innovation adoption decisions. The early majority, usually about one third

of the members in a system, tend to adopt innovations just prior to the average member of a social system; they are more deliberate about their adoption decisions. The late majority, also comprising about a third of the members of a system, are slower to adopt, and tend to be skeptical about innovation. Finally, the laggards are the traditionalists and the last group in a social system to adopt an innovation; they are suspicious of new ideas, processes, products, and services. Rate of adoption. The adopter categories lead into the third component of the time element, the rate of adoption. The rate of adoption is the speed that an innovation is adopted within in a social system (Rogers, 1995). Innovation adoption tends to follow an S-shaped curve, meaning that only a few individuals initially adopt the innovation; but as time moves on and more and more individuals adopt, the rate increases. Eventually, though, the adoption rate levels off and begins to decline. The characteristics of the innovation described earlier have a predictable impact on the rate of adoption, but the rate is influenced by other factors as well, including the social system. Social System The last of the four primary elements of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory is the social system (Rogers, 1995). All diffusion occurs within a social system, whose members may be individuals, groups, organizations, or subsystems, but who share a common goal or objective that links them together as a social system. The social system, for example, may be all of the families in a particular neighborhood, all of the physicians in clinic, or all consumers in the United States. Opinion leaders, change agents, and champions are the people within a social system who have the ability to influence the diffusion of innovation within a social system (Rogers, 1995). Opinion leaders are the influential members of a social system, whose influence stems from expertise and competence, accessibility, or leadership in conforming to the system's norms. Opinion leaders are at the center of interpersonal communication networks, and thus can serve as the model to be imitated when it comes to adopting an innovation (or to opposing an innovation). Change agents, on the other hand, are external to the system but represent change and innovation to the system. They are often not seen as similar to the rest of the members of the system, but instead possessing some special knowledge or expertise. Change agents often use opinion leaders to gain acceptance within a social system to diffuse (or oppose) an innovation. Within organizations, the individual who has the key role in influencing the organization's adoption and implementation of an innovation is the champion. The innovation champion has the ability to overcome barriers within the organization, and studies have shown that the involvement of an innovation champion contributes to the success of an innovation within an organization (Rogers, 1995). Special Features of Diffusion of Innovation Within Organizations In addition to those cited in the previous sections, there are a few additional features unique to the diffusion of innovation within organizations, including a number of characteristics of an organization's structure that influence how innovative the organization is (Rogers, 1995). First, centralization, or how much power and control reside with a small number of people, is

negatively correlated with innovativeness. Second, organizational complexity is a reflection of the levels of knowledge and expertise of staff, and is positively correlated with innovativeness. Third, the higher an organization's level of formality, or the degree to which it follows rules and order, the more the organization's innovativeness is inhibited. Fourth, the more interconnected an organization, by way of interpersonal network links within the social system, the more innovative an organization, in addition, the amount of resources available, or organizational slack, is positively correlated with innovativeness. Finally, the larger an organization, the more organizationally innovative it tends to be. In addition to structural characteristics, leadership characteristics are important within organizations. The more positive the attitude toward change held by leaders within an organization, the greater the organizational innovativeness (Rogers, 1995). Organizational innovativeness is also influenced by system openness, which is a measure of how the members of an organization are linked to people external to the organization. System openness is positively correlated with organizational innovation. The types of innovation-decisions within organizations add another layer to the innovationdecision process (Rogers, 1995). The three primary types of innovation-decisions appear in the organizational setting are optional, collective, and authority. When an individual within an organization has the freedom of choice to decide whether to adopt an innovation or not, this is an optional innovation-decision. When members of an organization (team, department, or entire organization) make a joint decision to adopt or reject an innovation, this is a collective innovation-decision. When a few individuals make a decision on behalf of an organization to adopt or reject an innovation, this represents an authority innovation-decision, and is usually based on positional, expertise, or status authority. A variation on these types of organization innovation-decisions is the contingent innovation-decision, for which a decision to adopt or reject an innovation is linked to an earlier innovation-decision; for example, the decision to adopt the use of a new piece of equipment is contingent on a necessary earlier decision to purchase the new equipment. The fastest rate of adoption is associated with authority innovation-decisions, although these types of innovations may be less effective in the implementation stage. As described, the innovation, communication, time, and the social system together are the primary elements of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers, 1995). Table 1 provides a summary of the key parts of each of these elements. Analysis and Critique of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory A theory is the attempt to model some aspects of the observed world (Dubin, 1983), or in other words, is an explanation of what some real world experience or event is and how it works (Torraco, 1997). In attempting to critique Rogers' theory of diffusion of innovation, it is helpful to have some criteria against which to evaluate it to see if it does explain or model how diffusion happens. Dubin (1983) provides one such framework. His outline of the seven features of a theoretical model allows a useful critique of theories, and will be used here to critique Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory. The seven features of Dubin's framework are: 1. Units

2. Laws of interaction 3. Boundaries 4. System states 5. Propositions 6. Empirical indicators 7. Hypotheses. The first of these features is units, or the elements or things that are of interest and focus in terms of their relationship(s) to one another, often called variables (Dubin, 1983). The ways in which these elements or things interact with one another are the laws of interaction. The domain in which the theory holds true determines the boundaries of the theory. The conditions under which the theory functions makes for the system states of the theory. These four features comprise the components of a theoretical model. The final three features in Dubin's framework focus on the performance of the theory. When truth statements are made about the theoretical model, these are the propositions of the theory (Dubin, 1983). When a theorist tests the applicability of the proposition in the real world, empirical indicators need to be created. These indicators are necessary to create hypotheses to determine whether the theory holds true and can explain or predict behavior in the real world. Using the Dubin framework to analyze a theory by evaluating its component parts, as well as its applicability in the real world, Rogers' theory of the diffusion of innovation can now be examined, as it applies to both individuals and to diffusion within and across organizations. Units Using Dubin's framework, there are a number of units, or variables, in Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory: * the innovation, * the individual or organization making the innovation-adoption decision, * individual innovativeness, * communication channels, * the innovation-decision process, * time, * social systems, and

* organizational structure and characteristics. Those variables most closely associated with diffusion of innovation among individuals are numerous and well defined; while the variables that extend diffusion of innovation theory to the organizational realm are fewer and not as well defined. For example, communication channels for individual innovation decisions are well articulated in two areas: mass media and interpersonal. However, when moving to diffusion of innovation within and across organizations, only the role of an individual such as a champion or change agent is defined. No other innovation communication channels that one would expect for people within organizations are discussed, such as professional associations, trade or professional journals, and regulatory requirements. Laws of Interaction The units of the theory interact in a number of key ways. Rogers' theory describes the interaction between the characteristics of the innovation, individuals as adopters, the influence of the social system as context for adoption, the communication channels, and individuals as influencers. These relationships result in what can be described as the laws of interaction for diffusion of innovation theory. For innovation diffusion among individuals, Rogers' theory describes a five-stage process: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. For innovation diffusion within organizations, the theory describes a different set of phases: agenda-setting, matching, redefining/ restructuring, clarifying, and routinizing. Within both of these processes, the theory describes other interactions. For example, communication channels, the characteristics of the innovation, and opinion leaders, change agents, and innovation champions all interact to influence the diffusion of innovation. However, since the variables of the theory are less well described when diffusion of innovation is studied within and across organizations, one can logically assume that the laws of interaction in the organizational realm are also less well defined, in Dubin's framework, this is indeed the case when evaluating Rogers' theory. Specifically, the theory begins to describe the innovationdecision process within organizations, but not to the level of addressing whether and how the characteristics of an innovation interact to affect its adoption within organizations, or whether organizational type, size, or industry affect adoption. In addition, while there is an innovationdecision process described for individuals and within organizations, there is no description of how the variables interact when innovations are diffused across organizations. Boundaries The boundaries of the theory are the social system within which the innovation diffuses or is rejected. The social system boundary is defined by the shared goals of a group of individuals or of an organization, and by where the structure, norms, opinion leaders, change agents, consequences serve to confine the diffusion decision and results within a system. A social system could be a neighborhood, a profession or trade (e.g., physicians or farmers), or a country or culture. For organizations, the organization serves as the social system, and therefore, as the boundary of the theory.

By analyzing diffusion of innovation theory through the lens of the Dubin framework, some gaps in the theory emerge. Organizations are described as a social system, but within organizations, departments or teams can also serve as social systems. Yet the unique issues and elements of departments or teams within a larger organizational context are not addressed in terms of how these boundaries affect the adoption of innovation. In addition, boundaries are not addressed for instances when diffusion of innovation occurs across organizations, such as between schools of a school district or hospitals and clinics within a health care delivery system. System States The system states are the conditions under which the innovation decision is made and the theory holds true. For diffusion of innovation among individuals, Rogers' theory works when there is an innovation, a user of that innovation, someone else who has not been exposed to the innovation, and a means of communicating between the user and non-user. These conditions must be in place for diffusion of innovation theory to hold true. For diffusion of innovation theory in organizations, the only system state defined by the theory is what type of decision-making process is in place for adopting and implementing innovations, identified as optional, collective, authority, and contingent innovation-decisions. Rogers' theory does not tell us whether the system states of organizations need to be in normal operating mode in order for the theory to apply, or whether the theory holds in all types of organizations or only in certain types. Propositions The propositions that emerge from the theory as it pertains to individuals revolve around the characteristics of the innovation, and how they affects the rate of adoption; and that diffusion of innovation is a social process, involving communication between people. The propositions that emerge from the theory as it relates to organizations are that diffusion within organizations is influenced by organizational structure, leadership, and system openness. There is the opportunity for many more propositions, or truth statements, to extend from the theory if the variables, laws of interaction, boundaries, and system states were expanded to include more elements of diffusion of innovation within and across organizations. Empirical Indicators The indicators of the accuracy of the theory's propositions, when tested empirically, are measured by the result of the innovation-decision (i.e., adoption or rejection), individual and organizational innovativeness, and, as cited most frequently as the indicator studied, time to adoption (or rate of adoption) of the innovation by an individual or organization. Again, there is opportunity for the empirical indicators to be applied in situations of diffusion of innovation within and across organizations.

Hypotheses and Research There are a number of hypotheses stemming from the theory that have been empirically tested. For diffusion of innovation among individuals, the hypothesized relationship between characteristics of an innovation and its rate of adoption has been tested, and shown that relative advantage, compatibility, trialability, and observability were each positively associated with the rate of adoption, and that complexity of the innovation was negatively associated with the rate of adoption. In addition, the similarity of the source of information and communication about an innovation (e.g., opinion leaders and change agents) was hypothesized to be positively related to the rate of adoption. Finally, the rate of adoption within a social system is hypothesized to follow an S-shaped curve, reflecting individual innovativeness and adopter categories. For organizations, the hypotheses center on organizational structure, leadership, and system openness and their relationship to diffusion of innovation within organizations. Size, complexity, interconnectedness, and organizational slack were each hypothesized to be positively associated with organizational innovativeness, while centralization and formality were negatively associated. A positive attitude about change by organizational leaders increased an organization's rate of adoption, as did system openness. Also, the more involvement of an innovation champion within an organization, greater success of innovation adoption and implementation was hypothesized. Finally, there was a hypothesized positive relationship between authority innovation-decisions and the rate of adoption (although some question of the sustainability of this type of decision over the long term as compared to optional or collective decisions). The more the theory includes diffusion of innovation in the organizational context, more hypotheses can stem from the theory. Table 2 summarizes the elements of Dubin's framework as applied to Rogers' theory, evaluating the theory in terms of diffusion of innovation between individuals and diffusion of innovation within organizations. The table identifies those elements that are currently identified, described, and explained in Rogers' theory. The table does not include the gaps and questions revealed by using the Dubin framework for analyzing the theory. The questions and gaps were identified and introduced in this section, and are further discussed in the following section. Emergent Themes from the Review and Critique As a result of describing and analyzing the elements of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory using the Dubin framework, a number of themes emerge. First, it becomes clear that Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory building and research began with, and still primarily focuses on, diffusion and adoption by individuals rather than within organizations. This provides an opportunity to more fully extend Rogers' work into the organizational setting, some of which may be accomplished by bridging to additional existing organizational-based innovation diffusion research by other scholars. Second, there is a need to fully describe the interaction between the innovation, the adopter, the social system, and the other influencers of adoption, especially how these units of the theory relate to diffusion of innovation within organizations. More logical propositions stemming from the theory that can be empirically tested could advance the theory and its application. Finally, while the body of research related to innovations within organizations grows, little is said about diffusion across organizations in Rogers' theory, leaving

a real gap in an area of much concern and importance in such fields as public health and education. In addressing the first two of these implications (i.e., focus on individuals rather than within organizations, and the opportunity to more fully describe the relationships between the theory elements within organizations), it is helpful to look to research that Rogers had not yet incorporated into his work. While Rogers is prominent in the field, there are other researchers who have addressed diffusion of innovation in organizations whose research and theory can supplement the work of Rogers and should find their way into his and other future synthesizing work. A full review of related research and theory is not feasible within the limits of this article, the examples that follow provide additional research specific to diffusion of innovation in organizations to illustrate where there may be theoretical bridges to be built between Rogers and others. The brief examples that follow demonstrate how diffusion of innovations theory building and research has extended to the organizational context, and illustrate the future directions that theory building and research could take to link Rogers' theory with other work more focused on organizations (Damanpour, 1992; Lindquist and Mauriel, 1989; Marcus and Weber, 1989; Van deVen, 1986). Related Research Examples As part of the Minnesota Innovation Research Program, Van de Ven (1986) found that in implementing externally induced innovations, two cycles are shown to exist in companies: 1) a vicious one in which poorly performing organizations respond with rulebound behavior, a response that perpetuates their poor performance, and 2) a beneficent one in which better performing organizations have autonomy, a response that reinforces their strong performance. This may be a different way of describing Rogers' innovation-decision processes within organizations; specifically, the vicious cycle may be related to the authority innovation-decision process, and the beneficent cycle related to the collective innovation-decision.
A specific study can help to illustrate the theory as it manifests in organizations. Marcus and Weber (1989) applied the vicious and beneficiate cycles to the nuclear safety standards industry to test them empirically. Their nuclear power study was a quantitative and qualitative study of nuclear power plants and how power plant organizations implemented a government-mandated Independent Safety Engineering Group (ISEG). The study included 81 open-ended interviews with safety review staff at 13 nuclear power plants in 1982. The questions and supporting records and materials were used to develop a typology of how the ISEG was implemented as an externally induced innovation. The power plant organizations were driven by either rule-bound behavior (i.e., strict compliance with the standard technical specifications) or autonomy (i.e., customizing the required guidelines through the use of unique, plant specific characteristics). Results of the study showed that the autonomy approach was correlated with fewer safety events and fewer human error events. Their study supports the hypothesis that autonomy is likely to be associated with fewer human error events. Marcus and Weber (1989) looked at evidence from other studies of externally induced innovation to support

the nuclear study findings. Five studies in sitebased school management, naval system, and medical devices, involving either a process innovation or a product innovation or both, showed similar results supporting the hypothesis that autonomy is key in the successful adoption of externally induced innovation.

In the field of education, much research has been done around adoption of both curricular changes and administrative changes in schools. For example, Lindquist and Mauriel (1989) conducted a case study to test the importance of breadth versus depth in diffusing innovation within schools. In their study, breadth was indicated by number of organizational lines or departments crossed horizontally in the innovation adoption process. Measures of breadth included the number of organizational units affected, amount of communication across organizational lines, and the project's place in the agenda of top management. Depth, on the other hand, was an innovation effort that focuses on a specific work group or organizational unit. Measures of depth included number of different stakeholder groups involved in implementation, number of different organizational levels involved in the innovation, and the amount of external versus internal communication regarding the innovation. Their case study also looked at the orientation toward organizational communications patterns and the nature of the relationship between the central school office and the field location where the innovation was being implemented. The Lindquist and Mauriel study (1989) was a three year study of two schools, one each implementing each way, by breadth and by depth. Their conclusions were that there is greater sustainability of a breadth approach; that depth approaches are slower to launch; and that the depth approach is more challenging because of multiple stakeholders. However, the answer to their central research question (which approach is more productive in facilitating smooth and effective adoption of the innovation) was inconclusive. The distinction between breadth and depth provide a useful extension of Rogers' work regarding communication channels and their particular role in diffusion within organizations. Other research substantiates and extends parts of Rogers' theory, and provides more specific elements. Damanpour (1992) conducted a meta-analytic review of innovation diffusion looking at the relationship between organizational size and innovation. His findings confirmed that size is a key organizational structure factor in the diffusion of innovation, as Rogers' hypothesized; but Damanpour found more specifically that size was more strongly related to the implementation phase than the adoption decision phase. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that size is a more important factor in manufacturing organizations than in service organizations, and in profit more than not-for-profit organizational settings (Damanpour, 1992). Implications for Future Research Based on the review and critique of Rogers' theory and the supplementary examples provided of innovation diffusion research in organizations, there is an opportunity for continued theory building and research on diffusion within and across organizations, and also the opportunity to better link existing research on diffusion within organizations to Rogers' core theoretical base. The following research questions help to build theory in diffusion of innovation within organizations and to bridge between Rogers' theory and other existing work.

* How do an innovation's characteristics (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) affect its adoption within organizations (different, or the same, hypotheses as for diffusion among individuals)? Does the organizational type, size, or industry make a difference? * Do the communication and communicator elements of individual diffusion of innovation theory apply to organizations? (In Rogers' theory, only system openness is addressed as a communication element within organizations.) * Do individual or organizational factors take precedent over the other in diffusion of innovation within organizations, and what is the nature of those interactions? In addition to developing new logical propositions from Rogers' theory, and bridging existing research within organizations, there is still much work to be done on diffusion of innovation across organizations. Potential research questions include: * How are innovations diffused across organizations, and what elements of diffusion of innovation among individuals and within organizations are relevant? * Do individual adopter categories (i.e., innovator, early adopter, early majority, late majority, laggards) apply to organizations as an indicator of organizational innovativeness? Does it vary by types of organizations or certain industries? * Do organizations follow the same Sshaped adoption curve as individuals? Again, does it vary by organizational type, size, or industry? Conclusion With a focus the diffusion of ideas, processes, products, and services within and across organizations, this article first demonstrated why diffusion of innovation is important for such fields as organization development, human resource development, education, public health and health care, and information technology. Rogers' research and theory on diffusion of innovation is prominent in the field, so was chosen for review and critique. The four primary elements of Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory were described - the innovation, communication, time, and social system - with a special emphasis on how the theory applies within and across organizations. Dubin's theory building framework was used to critique the theory, and identified three key emergent themes. First, there is an opportunity to more fully extend Rogers' work into the organizational setting, some of which may be accomplished by bridging to additional existing organizational-based innovation diffusion research by other scholars. Second, there is a need to fully describe the interaction between the innovation, the adopter, the social system, and the other influencers of adoption, especially how these elements of the theory relate to diffusion of innovation within organizations. Third, there is a gap in research and theory of diffusion of innovation across organizations. A few examples of other diffusion of innovation research specific to the organizational setting were cited to provide illustration for the kinds of theory building and bridging work that can be done. Finally, a number of important but yet unanswered

research questions were posed to continue to extend and expand Rogers' theory of the diffusion of innovation.