This document presents a methodology for choosing between different technology options described as "good, better, and best". It discusses stages of technology adoption including knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. It outlines factors to consider such as adopter cohorts, governance models, evaluation approaches, selection processes, implementation considerations, and lessons learned. The goal is to provide a framework to guide decision making when evaluating and adopting new educational technologies.

1. Technology Adoption
A methodology for choosing between good, better
and best

2. Innovations

3. COHERE 2013
A methodology for choosing between good, better and best
Richard Rush

4. Introduction

5. Innovation Adoption

6. What do we care about adoption?

7. Stages of Adoption
Confirmation
Implementation
Decision
Persuasion
Knowledge

8. Adopter “Cohorts”

9. Governance for Ed Tech

10. Why Governance?

12. Cascade Model

13. Knowledge Stage
Models of Identification

14. Three common inputs

15. Problem looking for a solution

16. Solution looking for a problem

17. Isomorphism

18. Persuasion Stage
Models of Evaluation

19. Persuasion
IF TO ADOPT
WHICH TO ADOPT

20. Trial and Error

21. Specifications Match

22. Isomorphism – Part 2

23. Decision Stage
Models of Selection

24. Mandated Model

25. Request for Proposal

26. Isomorphism – Part 3

27. Implementation Stage
Considerations for
Implementation

28. Project Management

29. Orientation

30. Training

31. Cultural

32. Confirmation Stage
Lesson’s Learned

33. References

Barak, M. (2010). Motivating self-regulated learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology & Design Education, 20(4), 381-401.

Beath, C. M. (1991). Supporting the information technology champion. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 355-372.

Benamati, J., & Lederer, A. L. (2001). Rapid information technology change, coping mechanisms, and the emerging technologies group. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 17(4), 183-202.

Cheney, P. H., Mann, R. I., & Amoroso, D. L. (1986). Organizational factors affecting the success of end-user computing. Journal of Management Information Systems, 3(1),
65-80.

Devaraj, S., & Kohli, R. (2003). Performance impacts of information technology: Is actual usage the missing link? Management Science, 49(3), 273-289.

Hartwick, J., & Barki, H. (1994). Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Management Science, 40(4), 440.

Jasperson, J. (Sean), Carter, P. E., & Zmud, R. W. (2005). a comprehensive conceptualization of post-adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled
work systems1. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 525-557.

Karahanna, E., Straub, D. W., & Chervany, N. L. (1999). Information technology adoption across time: A cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs.
MIS Quarterly, 23(2), 183-213.

Karuppan, Corinne M. & Karuppan, Muthu. (2008). Resilience of super users' mental models of enterprise-wide systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 17(1), 2946.

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2005). The ability of information systems development project teams to respond to business and technology changes: A study of flexibility measures.
European Journal of Information Systems, 14(1), 75.

Leonard-Barton, D. (1988). Implementation as mutual adaptation of technology and organization. Research Policy, 17(5), 251.

Moore, G. (2001). Crossing the Chasm (ePub. ed.), HarperCollins e-books.

Odhabi, H. (2007). Investigating the impact of laptops on students’ learning using bloom's learning taxonomy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(6), 1126-1131.

Palvia, S. C. (2000). Effectiveness of asynchronous and synchronous modes for learning computer software for end users: An experimental investigation. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 41(2), 99.

Rogers, Everett M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.), New York, NY: Free Press.

Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1993). Exploiting opportunities for technological improvement in organizations. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 13.

34. Questions and Comments