BendTech

In 1942 Neal C. Gross and Bruce Ryan began work on a sociological model, now formally known as the Technology Adoption Life Cycle (figure 1), with the original purpose to track the purchase patterns of hybrid seed corn farmers. A few years later, in 1957, Joe M. Bohlen, George M. Beal, and Everett M. Rogers took this a step further and wrote a paper documenting their study around what is known as the Diffusion Process or Diffusion of Innovations.  Their paper outlined how farmers accepted new ideas or innovations into their community and was later formalized in Everett Rogers book which outlined the “theory of how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures.” To further clarify this, their work documented what is known as the “Roger’s Bell Curve” along with their summary findings as shown in figures 1 and 2 below:

Figure 1

Figure 2

Their study fundamentally outlined how farm people accepted new ideas and the break-down and the demographic mix that outlined how and by whom new ideas were accepted. Fast forward almost 50 years to 1991. Geoffrey Moore took this original theory and model of Diffusion and the Technology Life Cycle and put his own take on it in his book Crossing the Chasm. In his book, Geoffrey Moore outlined that “the most difficult step is making the transition between visionaries (early adopters) and pragmatists (early majority).” He referred to this step or gap as simply, the chasm (see figure below). Perhaps most importantly, Geoffrey Moore outlined that if a company can cross this chasm, then they will have the momentum to become the defacto standard and/or simply the momentum to be successful.

Figure 3

Demographic and Psychological Characteristics

So what does all of this have to do with Bend and Central Oregon?  EVERYTHING. I would argue that what Geoffrey Moore has described; what Everett Rogers’ research produced; all of the work done; defines Central Oregon. When applied in terms of our technology industry and economic base as well as general and advanced education curriculum throughout our community, we are struggling to cross the chasm to provide a sustainable and advanced 21st century economic, education base, and government. Separate the fact that the Technology Adoption Life Cycle is focused on being oriented towards products and technologies and focus on this being about community practices, industry penetration, proliferation, economic development, education, and progressive and advanced government throughout the community. That is, after all, the original thesis of Everett Rogers’ work on the Diffusion of Innovations. His work was focused on trying to understand the adoption rate, education, government involvement, etc. for the farm community around new advancements and practices.

One could argue we’re at multiple places throughout the Life Cycle as shown in Figure 3, but I would fundamentally simplify that and argue that Central Oregon is exactly where point 1 on the Figure is designated.  We haven’t, at this juncture, made it to the chasm. And, more ominously, Bend is perhaps at point 4. We are mired in old economics, education, practices, and patterns with only a small percentage of individuals, companies, and organizations within the community that are the innovators and early adopters (i.e., those trying to push the economic base of Central Oregon in a new technology-oriented direction). NOTE: when I refer to technology, I am referring to all types of technology (i.e., Software, Hardware, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Aerospace, and Clean Tech).

We’re not alone by any means. As Robert Kieffer points out in his recent post on “Bend’s French Connection“, Bend is not too dissimilar from Paris, or any other city outside of Silicon Valley, in being able to adopt, create, and nurture a technology eco-system that is sustainable and successful. Silicon Valley was able to cross the chasm long ago for a variety of reasons, while if you look around the world at areas that have been able to create the same or similar eco-system and structure, they certainly are few and far between. That doesn’t mean it isn’t possible to do here; that doesn’t mean we have to have the same model or the same infrastructure. It means that we have to “Think Different“.

As someone who has been fortunate enough to travel the globe and as someone who works daily with others around the world from places such as Belarus, Bangalore, Paris, Oslo, Zurich, Warsaw, and Silicon Valley, I am witness to what is possible. I work daily with individuals who have little in terms of education infrastructure, open government or even economic opportunities, yet they have put themselves in a position as some of the leading offshore software developers in the world. They have done this through innovative programs, hard work, and open minds.  Certainly, they also have a selling point as to lower cost and wages; however, I have found time and time again that the actual cost benefit of using these developers in these areas is not realized.  That is to say, the cost of establishing and maintaining the infrastructure and support systems for working offshore outweighs the benefit of the lower wages. This in and of itself is a post and discussion that others have dedicated their time to examining. I don’t want to get into that debate here, but rather use this as an example of how other’s have been successful and how they have crossed the chasm in their own communities.

I believe Tom Friedman probably put it best in his recent column, “Time to Reboot America“. In his piece Friedman writes:

We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover…It has to go into training teachers, educating scientists and engineers, paying for research and building the most productivity-enhancing infrastructure — without building white elephants…If we allow this money to be spent on pork, it will be the end of us…America still has the right stuff to thrive. We still have the most creative, diverse, innovative culture and open society — in a world where the ability to imagine and generate new ideas with speed and to implement them through global collaboration is the most important competitive advantage. China may have great airports, but last week it went back to censoring The New York Times and other Western news sites. Censorship restricts your people’s imaginations. That’s really, really dumb. And that’s why for all our missteps, the 21st century is still up for grabs. John Kennedy led us on a journey to discover the moon. Obama needs to lead us on a journey to rediscover, rebuild and reinvent our own backyard.

My further point I want to emphasize is that we need to “rediscover, rebuild, and reinvent our own backyard”. No one else is going to do it for us. We need to rediscover and frankly discover the incredibly rich technical talent we have in our community. We need to rediscover the rich resources we have here that can lead us to new generations of energy technologies. We need to reinvent our industry and economic base, away from simply tourism and development, to software development, clean technology initiatives, and other 21st century economic opportunities. We need to reinvent ourselves by providing “just in time” training and education that allows individuals displaced by the old industries to be trained and educated on new technologies and programs that will sustain themselves, their families, our community, and our country into the new century and beyond. We need to reinvent our local government to provide economic incentives and local stimulus programs to move us in this new direction. And, we need to rebuild our government infrastructure to utilize new technologies that can both advance our systems, while conserving our tax dollars by utilizing new technologies appropriately.

So What’s Next?

Over the course of the next two months, I’ll layout my perspective as to what can be done to move Central Oregon beyond the chasm.  To do so, there are some fundamental areas that must be addressed and I will do my best to provide concrete examples and solutions of what we can to do to get things moving. Some things are already being done by the innovators and early adopters throughout the community. They are unsung and typically unknown heroes that, frankly, are not satisfied with settling for the status quo economic and education development throughout the community. What I discuss here and in the upcoming blog posts will certainly not be comprehensive nor necessarily correct, but I hope it will provide ideas to stimulate and provoke further discussion. As such, shout out, comment, disagree, agree – I want a healthy debate to stimulate and engage the community.  I want to reboot Central Oregon.

That said, look for the following upcoming posts where I will expand up on my thoughts and perspective as well as others as to what we need to do cross the chasm:

• Crossing the Chasm – Part 2: Government
• Crossing the Chasm – Part 3: Education
• Crossing the Chasm – Part 4: Economic Programs
• Crossing the Chasm – Part 5: Evangelism and Economic Development
• Crossing the Chasm – Part 6: Community Organization

Reference

DEFINITION:  The Technology Adoption Life Cycle model describes the adoption or acceptance of a new product or innovation, according to the demographic and psychological characteristics of defined adopter groups. The process of adoption over time is typically illustrated as a classical normal distribution or “bell curve.” The model indicates that the first group of people to use a new product is called “innovators,” followed by “early adopters.” Next come the early and late majority, and the last group to eventually adopt a product are called “laggards.”