Be sure to listen to the Podcast that goes along with this.
There are five categories of Technology Users Rogers called as “adopter categories” (Rogers, 1962). First, using adoption terminology does not seem like the best fit for technology test groups because it crosses over into Family Law terminology where unwanted children, or those unable to be cared for are given up for adoption. The law defines Adoption Law as General features of adoption law that are common across states include the complete vesting of parental rights with the adoptive parents, the requirement of consent, the best interests of the child standard, the confidential nature of adoption proceedings, and the permanent nature of adoption (Library of Congress, 2015). Rogers works, as cited are not actual books available for verification and cannot be accepted and used in real world or future application working with user groups, even though it is numerically listed and presented as ‘organized’ and a useful way to understand technology users.
Adoption is often a sad case, so why it has been selected to describe technology is in question and disputed. The term creates an “adoptive and non-adaptive” mindset or illusion that some technology is unable to be cared for and therefore given up to another provider or parent. Parent/Child references are often used to describe data tables in Microsoft, where two joining tables, using a primary key, in access must match (Microsoft, 2011). The use of “parent/child” terminology has expanded to style themes for Internet pages used by WordPress.org. This is simplistically explained as one being the higher level or theme or is responsible for controlling the behavior of its children, where tables and data fields are relationally linked where data elements are the same, some often not being a one to one or one to many relationships where multiple tables store data.
Adoption is often a sad case, so why it has been selected to describe technology is in question and disputed.
Adopter categories has been used in Technology Sectors to describe user groups who test new technologies, which are listed as 1) Innovators, 2) Early Adopters, 3) Early Majority, 4) Late Majority, and 5) Laggards. Each category being responsible or using a system at a different technical stage, as innovators of it. The terms are not quote worthy, simply because there is not enough qualifying research to support Roger’s “adoption” terminology as it relates to ‘personalities’ types of innovators. First, it is typecasting, making a false assumption that many are categorized and behind on technology, when it can be succinctly explained as some are just more apt to understanding how it works. Others are not as quick to intuitively understand how to use systems – they are all in fact users, not categorized or tested in a ‘staggard’ or ‘group’ approach in all systems implementations, therefore it is not ‘adopted’ as a universal Information Technology term, even if used in Government or Commercial Systems Engineering. Calling a group, a “laggard” is a negative choice of word, as is the term ‘adoption’ and while some foster children look forward, hoping they can find a family that wants, accepts, loves, and cares for them, information technology is not the same and draw from the Family Court System to profile personalities of humans’ perspectives of technology.
It is true that anyone can learn technology and because of technology, anyone and everyone is now free to do so, unless they do not have access to it.
Rogers attempts to use personality profiling to describe and separate or classify users or Information Technology engineers, which seems like it could head towards another disaster like discrimination and civil war. There are different types, but all people experience all types of dispositions towards technology throughout their lives. It is true that anyone can learn technology and because of technology, anyone and everyone is now free to do so, unless they do not have access to it. Different engineers, developers, conceptualizers, planners, and budgeters have different perspectives, some not knowing anything at all when they are first introduced to a system.
Rogers attempted to use a Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI, 2021), to categorize personalities into user groups based upon test results, not understanding situational dynamics, and never really explaining how it is used in real world technology projects. They might be members of a team, leveled by knowledge, cooperation, acceptance, and evaluation. An innovator might see differently than a user group that has been selected to be the first to test a system and vice versa; both groups offering valuable insight working together, but with different roles. If a test plan is developed to segment users, then they are simply separated by time and responsibility and not by talent, potential, personality, or insight. Rogers considers a “laggard” as a member of a user group that is last to adopt innovation, lowest social status, oldest among adopters, and other negative traits. If the ability to group these individuals into segments exists, then what is the purpose of employing or using them in technology, other than to describe those who are not a positive influence when it comes to innovation. They could better be described as an “earlier generation” but even that is improper because there are plenty of senior citizens who love technology and enjoy its benefits.
An innovator might see differently than a user group that has been selected to be the first to test a system and vice versa; both groups offering valuable insight working together, but with different roles.
Social status has very little to do with the type of Technology professional, but social interaction and skill does play a significant role as a force within an organization to advance technology or quickly stifle a project or program. Some have been accused of being “anti-social or personally deficient.” William Gates, Steve Jobs, and Elon Musk are considered technology pioneers, but nothing is ever shown or discussed about their social activities other than their products, presentations, interviews, and perceived wealth. It is evident that there are some people in Technology teams and in organizations, holding positions with decision making power that seek to stop innovation mainly based on fear of change, lack of knowledge, skill, or willingness to adapt. Some professionals seek to work in the field because it produces higher income. Some have valuable, real, honest reasons, which should be presented during a system evaluation, pre-procurement, pre-development, or pre-sales phase. These should not be considered adopters, but creators, developers, team members, or buyers or users of a new system, and depending upon who they are in an organization and what position they hold, can also be considered stakeholders, or ones that must be convinced or ‘won over’ to move a system, program, or project forward. They all individually perform the same roles throughout their careers and even in projects but follow the common team organizational structure. As Technology tries to innovate the ‘new creation’ of a human for improved efficiency and production, called the robot or ‘humanoid’ using Hollywood and video to promote this ideal, it creates a serious gap in business capability, which is why manufacturing, engineering, and information technology is separated, but must work closely together because they are in fact, interdependent and stay tied together, making improvements because of Change Management.
Attitudes and behavior towards technology plays a major role in its acceptance. There are users who can cause a company or organization to fail, fall behind, and delay progress. Change management is the process by which these people are dealt with or identifying key reasons and managing process and personalities around this type of behavior. If Rogers and Microsoft are using parental terminology, then its safe to say dealing with bad behavior during any part of a technology process is like wiping noses, changing diapers, and burping a baby. All required, not always desired and welcomed by both parties, but a necessary part of life.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT
People, Systems, and Behavior
Change Management which is presented from a combined perspective of two areas: People and Technology. When Technology enters or changes, people are required to change. Successful projects are delayed or negatively impacted when people create obstacles or obstruct innovation, therefore human behavior is a necessary component of Technology. There is very little research on Technology’s response to humans because PCs, networks, and software were considered feelingless machines. There are plenty of reasons to resist Technology Innovation, which is greatly reduced with proper introduction, training, and management. People are required to change work products, styles, and behavior, just as Technology Managers are required to manage technology changes and often refer to system’s behavior using interchangeable terminology and methods. Introducing and managing change in people are different than how technology change is managed, especially when a paradigm shift is planned in progress. It is true that Technology improves people management, products, and other perceptions of each other.
Technology change is managed in different project or program stages, while change management dealing with people occurs throughout the technology process, which includes multiple types and different strategies: Technology Teams, the Buyers, and the Users. The main goal is innovative acceptance on both fronts. Just as humans want to be accepted, systems engineers and innovators want their concepts, creations, and changes to be accepted. Resistance seems to be met when people refuse or do not want to change and opposition is met when they refuse, both being obstacles where change management takes place, either by gaining consensus, negotiation, force, and/or consequence. Organizational Management must take place, using communication strategies designed to manage through change in both areas: People and Systems.
Such project problems in need of extra attention, require transformation and adjustment to become supportive team members or project teams or plans and systems must change. There are several reasons resistors are the last to accept or happily accept innovation and often display an unwillingness to change, or inability to see the benefits or learn new things. They are the ones whose jobs most often benefit from automation.
Change management can be used in an organization to train staff on technical advancements, reasons, benefits, and improvements, while managing attitudes and fears of job loss, change, and the fact that a more qualified or efficient program or computerized system can and will replace them. Restructuring or reassigning typically works, but it is better when they are informed directly or removed from the innovation task, simply to avoid program or project delay and failure – or destruction of human existence, rational reasoning, and good judgement, beyond simple insight and automation. Sometimes re-assurance is helpful, but not when or if change is resisted and results in unreasonable and unwanted negative change. It is a fact that innovation brings staff reduction because technology reduces the amount of time counting pages, calculating figures, and doing the same things over and over daily, in a robotic fashion. Not all jobs, tasks, or responsibilities should be automated and are evaluated against the pleasure, pain, and purpose of dealing with a human personality and presence versus a computerized system. Investments and impact are the critical factors in both cases – to automate, champion for change, or feed human dysfunction. Humans becoming robots seems possible and most likely sought after because they it has been realized the computer performs better, but before destroying both or investing in both, interdependencies must be well understood, using rational cause and effect test methods.
Introducing change into an organization without strategic planning can be disastrous. Communication is still key in accepting change and working through what can be considered and accepted as growing pains or challenges, but not all projects or new innovations bring this resistance, so assuming that “there will always be problems” must change. Preparing for them, just in case works, but not if it creates real situations where that ‘forecasting’ and ‘risk management’ task itself causes the project to fail or creates internal and external negative critics that can not be resolved or too many resources are required to ‘convince’ and ‘nurture’ the change. An excellent system is fully tested, presented, and ready for implementation when management works well with its organization to introduce and ensure the innovation is recognized, welcomed, accepted, and even loved. Addressing change management solely from an IT perspective is impossible because they are so closely related that one cannot and should not exist without the other. Structure, authority, power, and jobs change and the terminology must also change depending upon management style: Standardized, Laxed, Loose, or Strict.
If the organization is considered dysfunctional and are resistant to adaptation, learning, and change, then how is change supposed to occur without removal services, especially if they are unable or unwilling to listen, accept honest evaluations, and make plans for change, working with all systems. New systems bring change, which brings automation, which brings job change, resource changes, efficiencies, as well budget and profit changes. None of it is worthwhile and reusable if it is not documented, scientifically managed, and replicated or reusable for others. This is a major problem of “going green,” which was once referred to as ‘going paperless’ or ‘reducing bad energy’ and lowering cost for more efficient and less harmful solutions. Failure to innovate, manage change, and manage proof, along with all the many things that are required to show effectiveness and real value results in a new phrase called ‘halted development.’
Thievery, loss of work, failed implementations, unworkable, unmanaged, and undocumented change results in no or unwanted change, possibly called a simple setback or major decline in advancement. Companies and people get left behind, while others progress into innovative and better systems because they effectively managed each of these areas, understanding how one affects another beyond “electronic” terms such as ‘positive, negative, and neutral’ or managing and using industry concepts in one area, such as Electricity and using it in another area, called Electronics, now called Technology. Applying this concept to Family Law Proceeding, such as adoptions is harmful because it presumes one must leave another behind because there is a better, more efficient system, when really it might be because the system of law is flawed, inefficient, abusive, and requires a change beyond access, process, procedure, rules, information, expectations, and entitlements or principles on which humans base their thinking, actions, decision and understanding. If one is based on the previous without positive change, then the cycle of dysfunction, destruction, and harm continues.
It is another unskilled approach like using Legal terminology and processes to explain user groups called “Adopters.” Passing laws and adhering to current ones, while hoping or lobbying for new ones is disorganized and halts development if they are not worked together and, in some cases, causes severe detriment to society, organizations, and people. Viewing ‘systems’ management, starting with the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative Branch and the ethics, rules, and standards we must abide by and adhere to, alignment, change, and progress is better understood.
It requires an ‘adaptive’ period until operational efficiency, human, and system acceptance increases. Those are metrics defined before implementation to measure success. How does an organization manage before, during, and after the change, using plans, tests, and measures to gauge improvements or manage setbacks? This includes humans who obstruct or thwart the process, as well as those who readily accept change and seek to be a positive part of innovation.
All system development projects introduce change, and people generally resist change (Turbin, Volonino, & Wood, 2015). Overt resistance from employees may take the form of sabotaging the new system or deriding the new system to anyone who will listen…Covert resistance typically occurs when employees seem to do their jobs using their old methods (Turbin, Volonino, & Wood, 2015). This is a negative, but truthful perspective, which depends upon how the technology is introduced and communicated to staff and teams. Not all people resist technology, in fact, many are excited about it, welcome its added benefits, and are eager to see it in action. Using negativity to make acceptance assumptions or note behavioral responses to innovation might add to the problem when it might best to assign a change management and motivation role to the project. Honest and positive representation of system features, capabilities, functions, and its shortcomings are typically valued, but only when they can be seen, understood, and appreciated. It is when dishonesty and failure to meet customer needs or to communicate and prioritize such needs that problems seem to arise. Individual feasibility studies are conducted, while managing expectations to stay focused on the scope of the project, the mission of the program, and the goals of the organization. Open ended systems engineering tasks or technology development programs without specific timelines, priorities, plans, and goals that do not follow standard models and are often dysfunctional, resulting in wasted time in conducting sales and development activities.
Project Managers and buyers or users spend a great amount of time continuously battling wants, needs, priorities, problems, changes, and end up in a disorganized test, while still in development. The system might ultimately work, but the implementation process could have been better with stricter adherence to needs, priorities, rather than scopes and timelines, general or specific estimates, or just an overall better system or implementation plan. This is not often known until after a project has begun and leadership, management, and development styles become apparent. Categorizing users or technology professionals into personality types does nothing for understanding behavior, in fact, creates a negative expectancy that there will be resistance and levels of incompetence along the way, when a more positive approach is to identify potential project delays and how to deal with resistance to change. This does not create an ‘adoptive’ mindset, but knowledgeable and efficient managers often want to leave projects or give their systems up for adoption in these situations because of mismanagement and poor planning, products, and work styles. Kids and people are not projects, but they do them and some are ‘numbers, files, and reports.’ This is a distant, often non-empathetic, human approach to solving society or family matters using technology, without fully understanding ethics, law, force, limitations, abuse, and over-controlling or underestimating. Leaving a husband for the latest electronic device, obviously demands change on more than two parts – it affects more than just the man and wife, but also the family, utility company, the people’s friends, co-workers, and future potential of other areas where there is not just a need, but a more ethical or interesting want.
Server utilization levels should not even be discussed because again, there is a low-level work task used in conjunction with a legal process – causing conflict. An innovator, conceptualizer, and technology professional might understand server utilization, equipment sharing, and implementation, but not in the context and while describing ‘adoption’ categories for some user base that is not even identified for specific system use – such as the next Family Court divorce and disaster or worse, bad communication system that fails its entire team because of resistance, abusive authority, and unskilled, unadaptable robotic or human system engineers. Cloud computing and shared resources are of interest, but not to be discussed in such a disorganized technology plan where no one knows where data goes, is stored, read, edited, changed, or released – or even worse, when information is seen only as ‘data’ and not business processes aligned with the United States of America and its citizens. Server utilization tasks are important jobs for tech professionals, but not if they do not know what they are watching, why they are watching it, and what the ‘change’ means. This type of ‘work role’ or assignment leads to non-purposeful and robotic living where a person be a single problem in a criminal organization, or a technical analyst who understands more than just a statistic on paper which extends to memory use, information management, and all the many things that touch and go in and out of a system. Terminology, such as traffic monitoring, leaves a person not knowing if they are watching the news, analyzing their own commute to work on the interstate, or if they are managing the planned death toll of United States citizens.
Personality assessments or profiling of user groups and professionals, using Family Relations and change management merges Law, Business, and Technology to categorize and profile resistance or acceptance without really talking about plans, team dynamics, biochemistry, health, or even goals of an organization. Taking small key terms and tasks, such as ‘server utilization’ and using Microsoft’s Access to explain roles and responsibilities, authority, power, and control and industry or global initiatives to reduce or increase power and paper, is not solely based on ‘change and risk management’ or even goals and strategy. Leveling is considered, explaining technology from multiple non-starring roles, reducing these issues into a few faulty areas of ‘convergence’ or ‘merging’ of sad events where people are unwanted, given away, unwilling to change, work based on a faulty or unknown premise, and do not often understand or know why they are forced into ‘categories,’ situations, faulty systems, and are forced to endure bad results, controlled, and presented by unappealing professionals.
Sierra
References
Rogers, Everett M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, Macmillan Company
Myers Briggs Personality Type Indictator (MBTI), Myers Briggs Foundation, 2021l accessed via the Internet at https://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/mbti-basics/ on March 24, 2021
Adoption Law Summary, Library of Congress, December 30, 2020 accessed via the Internet at https://www.loc.gov/law/help/adoption-law/unitedstates.php#Summary on March 24, 2021
Answers, Microsoft, Inc., 2011 accessed via the Internet at https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/msoffice/forum/msoffice_access-mso_other-mso_2010/specify-a-parentchild-relationship-with-parent/57079e1c-9453-41cc-855c-4307ea41b5dd
Information Technology Management, 10th Ed., 2015, Turban, Volonino, Wood, pg. 51, 52