The Integrated Lab » Books http://theintegratedlab.com Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:45:06 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 Risk management is scary http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/07/risk-management-is-scary/ http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/07/risk-management-is-scary/#comments Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:38:04 +0000 John Trigg http://theintegratedlab.com/?p=428 As if we didn’t have enough to worry about already, risk management seems to be the latest addition to our list of responsibilities in the workplace.  There was a time when risk management probably meant no more than mopping up a spillage, or sweeping up some broken glassware.  These days it’s a career.  And it applies [...]]]> As if we didn’t have enough to worry about already, risk management seems to be the latest addition to our list of responsibilities in the workplace.  There was a time when risk management probably meant no more than mopping up a spillage, or sweeping up some broken glassware.  These days it’s a career.  And it applies to almost any aspect, of any business, that involves making a decision.  But it also has a fear factor – what if the decision is wrong?  what will the consequences be?  Few businesses can afford to run a ‘shoot now, ask questions later’ approach to decision making.  As scientists, we all know that data driven decisions make sense; in fact, you could argue that this is part of our purpose in life, to advance knowledge by rigorously testing scientific hypotheses through the acquisition and logical interpretation of data.  But as human beings, we also take a subjective view of risk.  Siri Segalstad has authored an article ‘Do We Really Understand Risks?’, published in Scientific Computing, that looks at a comparison between subjective and objective approaches to risk.  It’s well worth reading, just to add a little perspective to some of life’s scary moments.

As an extension to this, and slightly away from the laboratory, I’ve just finished reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre; actually, it’s the second time I’ve read it.  Ben Goldacre is a writer, broadcaster and doctor, known for his Bad Science column in the Guardian newspaper which is presented as a  weblog.  The book attacks the misuse of science, primarily in the field of medicine and nutrition.  If you work for a pharmaceutical company, it could make for some uncomfortable reading, but the underlying principles of data-based decision making and risk management will be appreciated by any scientist who has squirmed at some of the nonsense that is fed to the public at large.  And it is very funny……

]]> http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/07/risk-management-is-scary/feed/ 0 Technology Adoption & Crossing The Chasm http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/04/technology-adoption-crossing-the-chasm/ http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/04/technology-adoption-crossing-the-chasm/#comments Wed, 29 Apr 2009 08:02:48 +0000 John Trigg http://theintegratedlab.com/?p=100 The subject of technology adoption has been well researched over a number of decades.  Several anthropological studies have been published that offer quantitative evidence of user reaction to new technologies.  I started to look into this issue a few years ago in the light of some good and bad experiences with user buy-in in laboratory projects [...]]]> The subject of technology adoption has been well researched over a number of decades.  Several anthropological studies have been published that offer quantitative evidence of user reaction to new technologies.  I started to look into this issue a few years ago in the light of some good and bad experiences with user buy-in in laboratory projects and it seemed to me that most of the research dealt with the measurement of user uptake and the consequences of failure, but there was very little material published that gave any clear guidelines on how to get things right.

The definitive study of technology adoption is the book, ‘The Diffusion of Innovations’, by Everett Rogers , originally published in 1962.  In the book Rogers presents a distribution model as follows:

  • Innovators 2 – 3 %    Technology Enthusiasts: want to be first to try new technology; want one of everything.
  • Early Adopters 10%    Visionaries: able to align technology with strategic opportunities; willing to take risks; horizontally oriented.
  • Early Majority 36%    Pragmatists: cautious with risk and money; loyal; vertically oriented.
  • Late Majority 36%    Conservatives: opposed to discontinuous innovation; believe in tradition rather than progress.
  • Laggards 15%    Sceptics:  negative attitude towards technology; identify discrepancies between what’s promised and what’s delivered.

This study formed the basis of the proposal by G.A. Moore in his book ‘Crossing The Chasm’. Moore identified a gap, or ‘Chasm’ between the early adopters and the mainstream market.

Crossing The Chasm

The categories to the left of the Chasm represent a relatively easy market.  Targeting them initially in the roll-out of a project is important, but the next phase of the marketing strategy must get the buy-in from the conservative and pragmatic majority.  The early adopters can play a central role in this.  They have a pivotal role not only in articulating the rationale for the project, but also in providing training and on-going support to the conservative and pragmatic majority.  In this way, help and support is immediately to hand.  Identifying the early adopters is quite straightforward; they are typically the people in the lab everyone turns to when they have a computer-related problem.  Almost by default, they have the respect and authority that is necessary to heighten the chances of success of the project.

Moore’s book describes offers a really good approach to technology adoption, and the distribution curve is regularly featured in presentations about systems’ deployment.

]]> http://theintegratedlab.com/2009/04/technology-adoption-crossing-the-chasm/feed/ 0