1. GradeCam’s Critical Mass and Change Agents
As I continue my proposal to the Board of Directors in considering the adoption of the
GradeCam innovation, the focus will now be on the ‘point’ of critical mass and on some
of the key personnel in the organization. However, before addressing these two
scenarios, the Board might ask the question: If we were to adopt GradeCam, which
method do you think would be a better choice; a centralized or a decentralized approach?
I think that a centralized approach would be much better, because that would cost the
organization much less. Instead of distributing a GradeCam to each teacher after the
adoption of the innovation, the concentration of the equipment could be done
departmentally. For example, the six teachers of the mathematics department would
receive one instrument that would be used by only the members of that department. There
would be no exchange among departments, unless it’s absolutely necessary. To oversee
the operation of the GradeCam from the time it was adopted to the update of its latest
software, I would recommend some key personnel to the position of change agents.
A change agent is who Rogers (2003) called ‘an individual who influences clients’
innovation-decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency’. This agency,
ladies and gentlemen of the Board, is our organization, or better yet, our school. In
addition to myself, as the technical expert on this innovation, I would include the
principal, the main leadership of the institution. Both of us will lead the way in this
adoption, as we aimed at fulfilling the duties of a change agent. Rogers also identified the
roles of this agent, and listed them as follows:
1) The need to change clientele
2) Establishing an information exchange relationship
3) Diagnose problems
4) Create intent to change in the client
5) Translate intent into action
6) Stabilize adoption and prevent discontinuance
7) Achieve a terminal relationship
But, how can these seven roles effect positive social change within this school?
First, the faculty, especially those who are not technology proficient, would be trained in
the use of the innovation spearheaded by GradeCam Inc., the intention of which is to
make the adoption process real. Secondly, as change agents, we would share the latest
information about the innovation with the faculty on a regular basis, as soon as it is made
known to us by innovation’s creators. Thirdly, recognizing and diagnosing the issues or
problems of the faculty with respect to the innovation will be one of our priorities.
Fourthly, while processing the faculty’s adoption and use of the innovation, our intention
would be to transform the entire faculty as to the usefulness and necessity of GradeCam.
Fifthly, our intention would be made known to these users of the innovation, as they see
the real necessity of it. That is, the purpose of not just grading tests, but analyzing them
for student evaluation, which, in turn, would drive lesson planning, making it more
manageable than before. All these would be done, so as to stabilize the adoption of
GradeCam, preventing a discontinuity. Finally, this whole process would really not be a
success if new change agents are not emerged from the adopters. These new change

2. agents would then play our role, as new teachers join the faculty. This change agent
transformation would terminate the relationship of GradeCam adoption between the
principal, me, and the new change agents, formerly the adopters of GradeCam.
Members of the Board, as you have seen on the Sigmoid function, or the S-curve, the
GradeCam has already achieved its point of critical mass within the social strata of
education system. This occurred between the years 2005 and 2006, at 10%, when a steep
rise in the curve began. At this phase of the innovation, over 10% of the ‘early majority’
of classroom teachers exposed to the innovation, started to adopt it.