When we find a new web tool that we are pretty sure will benefit our users, when should we launch it? When users request it? When we first hear about it? When no-one else knows about it or has shown any desire to use it? After another library has introduced it and received good feedback?
I had thought that it was stupid to introduce a service that hardly anyone would use. Now I’m fine with it. Why? Roger’s Diffusion of Innovation Curve.
.
Other library bloggers have noted it before. It’s a bell curve showing the uptake of change in an organization over time. First the innovators take it up, then a few more (the early adoptors)…finally, even the laggards make the change. It’s copyrighted, so I won’t reproduce it, but here’s the distribution:
- Innovators: 2.5%
- Early Adopters: 13.5%
- Early Majority 34%
- Late Majority 34%
- Laggards 16%
I imagine there would be a process of refinement, where the innovators and early adopters- who are happy to navigate the rough spots - iron out the wrinkles so that if the change reaches the laggards, it is a very accessible service. There would also be a “drop off” of some innovations where early adopters would jump in, play with the possiblities, then discard the change when it doesn’t live up to its potential.
.
For libraries, it means we can implement ideas we think will be “goers” very early on. The early adopters will take them up and refine them. We can expect not to have a majority uptake immediately. Email reference service is a good example. I count the stats for this in my library, and know that usage has steadily increased over the last few years.
.
Probably comments like “not many people have broadband” or “not many people know about RSS” shouldn’t discourage us. Some do. More will.
.
We often aim our “user education” classes at the late majority and the laggards. We certainly should be helping them to adopt change. I wonder what would happen if we also designed some of these services primarily for the early adopters. What delivery method would we use? What would we tell them about? Would it become a more collaborative than pedagogical? Would it give a new meaning to “user education”, where the users actually educate us? I think we can learn a lot from early adopters - if we can convince them that there is a place for them in our libraries.
Feed
October 30, 2006 at 16:22
This post was accidentally deleted. Apologies to everyone. Here’s what everyone said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comment on Fostering services for the early adopters by When To Jump On The Bandwagon« Life as I Know It
[…] There is much talk of late about new technologies, new social software, and new tools that can be utilized to expand library services. The discussions that are taking place around these innovative ideas are wonderful - and the fact the people feel free to share their experiences with others in the library world is even better. I spend a great deal of time reading about these ideas and how people incorporate them in their library. However, I often wonder about when it makes sense to adopt some of these technologies. As such, I really connected with a post by Librarian Kathryn on the blog librariesinteract.info - Fostering services for the early adopters. […]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Andrew said:
Very interesting. I like to think of myself as an early-adopter, having set up my first blog six years ago, and chatting in online channels since back in 1993 when only the truly geekiest of netizens were into it.
I’m currently interested in how wikis are going to develop over the next couple of years. Could they form the basis of true information democracy, and if so, is this a Good Thing and should we embrace it? Or is there too much scope for abuse by people with an agenda who would pervert information resources with their own controversial views (such as the infamous “Martin Luther King” google search, where a white supremacy group made their site the most searchable).
Incidentally, I recently had a look at a wiki that had been set up by an Australian academic library, and I have to admit, my first impression was “This is crap. There’s hardly any content on this, nobody uses it, and the information available on it is questionable anyway.”
I’d be curious to re-visit it in a year’s time, and notice the difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Comment on Fostering services for the early adopters by Understanding early adoption « The Other Librarian
[…] I am currently in a discussion about following early adopters sparked from Kathryn Greenhill’s article. Unfortunately after getting in the discussion (not before), I decided to get a better understanding of what Everett Rogers was doing with his Diffusion of Innovations. I then realized that I was bandying about the “early adoption” phrase without having a clear understanding about how diffusion studies are done and what they represent. […]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peta Hopkins said:
This article has spawned some discussion over at “Life as I know it” — too bad it didn’t happen here, but never mind — you can check how it is progressing…
When To Jump On The Bandwagon
Read what Ryan Deschamps “The other librarian” and Karen Schneider “The free-range librarian” had to say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Peta Hopkins said:
A pertinent comment from web4lib discussion list–
“If we are early adopters of technology, we have to remember that not everyone will join us, but some will along the way. When a subject becomes important to someone, they will learn to join in with the band.” –
Darla Grediagin on wikis in libraries.
Read her full comment.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>