Knowledge barriers to technology adoption
Knowledge barriers to technology adoption:
The case of second-generation community networking
Murali Venkatesh, Ph.D.
Julia Nosovitch
Shahzad Khan
Community and Information Technology Institute (Citi)
4-118, CST, School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
Syracuse New York 13244
Position paper submitted to the Broadening our understanding: Community
networks and other forms of computer supported community work Workshop,
Knowledge barriers to technology adoption: The case of
second-generation community networking University-based systems
consulting and outreach aimed at community development are needed most
urgently today for two reasons. The first is the I the second
is the emerging phenomenon of high-speed community networking. As we
argue below, knowledge barriers to community adoption of high-speed
networks can be high.
University-based programs can play a critical
leadership and support role here to help communities adopt technology.
Communities can serve as a provocative and rewarding locale for
university-sponsored technology transfer efforts.
Community networking or computing has been defined in many ways. The
term often stands for Freenets, defined as loosely organized,
community-based, volunteer-managed electronic network servers (Victoria
Freenet Association, 1994) that provide free dial-up access to the
Internet and information about the local community (Beamish, 1998). The
term may also refer to community centers that provide access to
computer hardware, software and technical support, and to
specially-developed online content that is focused on a specific
low-income community or on a subject of interest to such a community.
Based on our research in New York State (see below), by
second-generation community network we refer to networks that include,
but go beyond, these functions. A second-generation network is
generally more complex than first generation networks such as Freenets.
A second-generation community network
provides high-speed links (well beyond dial-up speeds) not only to the
Internet but also to a high-speed community network backbone
is based on a high-speed backbone capable of transferring several
hundred megabits a second, and can support more advanced, integrated,
multi-media applications and more complex interaction, including one-to-many
and many-to- such a backbone may take several years
to plan and implement
usually involves the installation de novo of such a backbone, which
includes the wiring, transmission facility and connectivity equipment
(One aspect that is rarely considered in community computing is the
infrastructure needed to support the communication technology in
neighborhoods. Few projects focus on ensuring that a community is
wired, meaning that it has access to a broadband network which allows
the high-speed transmission of data, including sound and graphics
[Beamish, 1998, p. 398])
because of the high cost and complexity, usually requires the
participation of the telephone company and other service providers in
its design, deployment, maintenance
links not individual users but community non-profit institutions
(e.g., K-12 schools, government, health and human service agencies);
the institutional focus throws up many complex issues:
as second generation networks are more pricey to participate in,
potential participants have a challenging job convincing their
management, and the institutions they may want to link to, to play
potential participants have to be sensitive to interoperability
issues because the new technology may or may not work seamlessly with
existing technology
potential participants, especially those in the government sector,
will need to worry about how the new technology will impact the
institutions bid process for technology acquisition
potential participants will have to worry about how the new
technology will affect the process by which they currently deliver
services, and what kinds of retooling would be required on their part
(new staff recruitment, new ways of working, new technology
capabilities, relationships with new vendors and service providers)
is seldom free and requires a fee for participation (line charges)
and additional fees for services (not just Internet access but fees for
maintenance and value-added services); the higher financial outlays for
capital (equipment and lines) and monthly service charges and for
operating expenses (such as staff) make such networks relatively more
expensive for participants,
usually requires maintenance and monitoring both on the backbone and
user ends, and may span several layers: physical, Internet and
value-added services, and the telephone company
and other service provider (such as the ISP) or providers may all have
to cooperate to provide monitoring at these layers
usually require a highly-skilled, dedicated, paid staff (and
volunteer help) who pr volunteer help alone is not
sufficient
Benefits from a second generation network can be many. Information
access and sharing, real-time and on-demand multi-media communication,
and online services delivery can all be supported. A community arts
center in Syracuse will use the MetroNet to broadcast live to area
schools arts happenings and theatrical productions, design and produce
collaboratively with the city fine arts museum, and provide access to
its digital audio and video archive of community arts products via a
web site. Medicaid application screening can be done on live video,
saving valuable time for the applicants and money for the hospitals and
the county department of social services. Hearing impaired citizens can
get real-time signing services remotely from a non-profit agency using
desktop video links. High quality IP-based telephony and multicasting
are possible, and can save participants money.
Technology choices can
liberate as well as restrict possibility. While content is without
doubt key to the success of a community network, the size of the pipe
and the type of backbone technologies available are just as important,
because they determine what content, and what kinds of connectivity,
can or cannot be supported.
One of the networks in our research
offered its participants a high-speed pipe to connect to the backbone
with, but the switching equipment only supported point-to-point
connections. The participants really needed multi-point video
capability. Technology decisions are critical in second-generation
community networking because Internet connectivity is no longer the
only communities are equally keen on linking in,
and they want access to interactive, multi-media capabilities (a review
of projects funded by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration [NTIA] is suggestive of this trend).
But because of their complexity, knowledge barriers to the adoption of
advanced networking are correspondingly higher as well for the
community. Attewell (1992) has noted that knowledge barriers can impede
organizational adoption of computing technology. Extant research in
innovation adoption and diffusion neglects the difficulties a potential
adopter may face in not having the skills needed
such barriers can be high in the case of complex innovations like
computing. Attewell suggests that firms may postpone adoption until
they can overcome knowledge barriers, by developing know-how in-house
or through exter external bureaus played a key
role in the early years of business computing (1960s), helping lower
knowledge barriers and speeding up diffusion in organizations
(Attewell, 1992). This view of diffusion shifts the focus to
organizational learning and skill development as adopters gradually
develop the knowledge to adopt.
Attewell (1992) found support for his knowledge barrier approach.
Analyzing early computer diffusion data from market surveys, he found
that availability of technical skills in the adopting organization
decided if the innovation (computing technology) would be used or not
used. A few firms never used their computers due to problems or lack of
skills. Firms that could hired experts, but 70 per cent of firms had no
in-house specialist. Attewell shows that computer bureaus speeded up
diffusion by mediating between the technology and the adopting
organization by providing technical services. He notes a two-stage
process of adoption in the early decades (the 1960s), wherein firms
purchased technical services from bureaus (mediating institutions)
before acquiring computers in-house. Mediating institutions helped
decouple user expertise from the benefits of innovation: What is
striking about the computer revolution was the emergence of
institutional arrangements that removed a large part of the burden of
knowledge acquisition from the backs of potential users, and enabled a
relatively complex tech to diffuse rapidly into firms that lacked
expert knowledge and did not employ in-house specialists (Attewell,
The explanatory power of Attewell's (1992) knowledge barrier approach
became evident to us in our research into second-generation community
networking in parts of NY State. As part of an ongoing research
program, we studied eight such second-generation community networks in
central, western and parts of southern New York State. Two of these
have been opera the other six networks have passed
the planning stage will be implemented within the next year. These
eight networks, among others in the state, are being funded under the
New York State Diffusion Program.
Our research into second-generation community networking began in late
1996 with the planning for the Syracuse MetroNet, a New York State
Diffusion Program-funded community network to be implemented in
Syracuse. We developed two surveys
one designed to elicit user needs
and the other to elicit information on the technology and human support
infrastructure at respondent sites. These surveys were distributed to
150 non-profits in the community through the MetroNet steering
committee.
Eighty-five agencies responded to both surveys. Analysis of
the infrastructure survey responses revealed that a little under 65 per
cent of the respondents believed lack of access to technical expertise
to be a major barrier or barrier to their ability to plan effectively
for technology. The technology infrastructure was primitive in many
cases. A few agencies were relatively better off, and relied on the
telephone company for T1 service or dedicated 56 Kbps lines. Dial-up
Internet access was becoming more common among the bigger agencies.
Fifty-five per cent of this population had no in-house technical staff
person, and looked to vendors for technical advice. We followed up with
group interviews with a sub-set of 22 non- of these, ten were
from the major barrier category and the rest from the barrier category.
Respondents were unprepared for the MetroN the technologies
asymmetric digital subscriber line, ATM, and Internet
Protocol-based video/data conferencing -- were new to them (some of the
technologies were new to the world, see Applegate, 1994). Besides,
there was much confusion surrounding the intersection of telephone
company service options and these technologies, and about provisions in
the Diffusion Program guidelines themselves.
Nevertheless, respondents
were enthusiastic about the MetroNet and were sure of what they wanted
from it: the most frequently mentioned needs were desktop
videoconferencing with other local non-profits, shared database access,
high-speed Internet access, and one-stop kiosks for delivery of a wide
range of information and services to users. Overall, non-profits
evinced a high level of interest in participating in the MetroN they
saw it as helping meet a vital community need by supporting increased
cross-cluster linkages, that is, interaction across functional clusters
(K-12 schools talking to law enforcement agencies, for example). The
desire for increased cross-cluster linkages was a key finding from the
planning process, and boded well for a truly interactive community
network. However, anticipation was tempered with fears about the
knowledge and skills resources that would be needed to take full
advantage of such a network. 2
This summer, we surveyed and interviewed the leaders of eight Diffusion
Program networks
two in Buffalo, one in the Albany area, and five
others in Syracuse, Watertown, Cortland, Leatherstocking and Binghamton
areas -- to gauge their impressions of the network planning and
implementation process. Notes and minutes from several planning
meetings at these different venues were also used in the analysis. The
eight networks together cover a multi-county area spanning central,
western and parts of southern New York State. The eight networks
together reflect a financial commitment of several million dollars
under the Diffusion P when all eight networks are implemented,
they will serve several hundred non-profits, and many thousands of
users through them. The Diffusion Programs investment in the upstate
region to network low-income and underserved communities must count as
significant by any criterion.
A preliminary analysis of the available data suggests interesting
extensions to Attewell's (1992) knowledge barrier approach. First,
given that second generation community networks are complex,
multi-layered, multi-functional environments, we found that knowledge
shortfa although technology accounted for much of
the confusion in the groups we talked to, telecommunications regulation
and service provisions were contributors. Second, knowledge barriers
may impede supply-side institutions (technology vendors) as well,
contributing to delays in diffusion of newer technologies and
Third, university-sponsored outreach programs have played a
key role in lowering barriers by providing technical services,
instructional services (informal and formal) aimed at improving the
general level of knowledge in the community, by activism expressed
through participation in the network planning and implementation
processes, and in network monitoring and trouble-shooting functions.
Findings are briefly summarized below.
Knowledge barriers perceived by
the leaders (note that we talked to the network leaders not end-users)
can be classified into backbone and connectivity, customer premise
equipment and interoperability, services, and applications.
Backbone and connectivity: ATM was new to most. Most knew it to be a
pricey but high-performance technology, but had no clear general idea
of its capabilities on the backbone. The user connectivity options
available under the Diffusion Program asymmetric digital subscriber
line, cell relay at DS-1 and DS-3 rates, and cell relay at OC3 rates
occasioned many problems as well, centering on reach, bandwidth, and
cost elements.
Customer premise equipment and interoperability: Knowledge shortfalls
in this area were more critical because the CPE and interoperability
issues affected adopting organizations directly, unlike backbone issues
which were the purview of the service provider. Questions centered on
how ADSL and cell relay fit with existing PC-based office technology,
how or whether these technologies would affect regular telephone
service, and how they might fit with the Internet access provisions in
place in the adopting organization. A minority said they didnt know
enough even to ask questions about CPE and interoperability.
Applications: Two issues muddied the waters here: the PC and the
Internet, both of which were relatively new to respondents. PC-based
software applications to integrate both data and video conferencing
over the Internet (using the H.323 standard) would be supported by the
backbone. The H.323 standar the older H.320
standard was more familiar to some of our respondents. The Internet
introduced additional layer of complexity. The customer would have to
deal with multiple service providers (the telephone company, the ISP,
the value-added services provider for multi-point bridging and gateway
services for video conferencing, and the software vendor, at the very
least) for acquisition and trouble-shooting help, whereas earlier the
telephone company had provided all these video services.
Services: The intersection of technology and telephone company
service options occasioned many questions. What was a limited service
offering (LSO)? How exactly would it benefit a participant? How was it
different from a regularly tarriffed service under the provisions of
the Diffusion Program? Lack of understanding of operational specifics
on these service types led to social networking among some of the
network groups to locate and share documented information, but
fundamental questions remained at the time of the interviews. Service
level agreements with Bell Atlantic pertinent to ATM also occasioned
many questions. Knowledge barriers can go beyond technology to include
regulatory and business issues as well.
Eveland and Tornatzky (1989) note that diffusion is more challenging if
the technology is abstract or complex, fragile (i.e. does not work
consistently), requires continued hand-holding of adopters after sale,
affects a sizeable portion of the adopting organization, and is not
easily turned into a standardized commodity or package. These features
are shared by many advanced technologies, and second generation
networks are certainly an example of advanced technology. As outlined
above, the Diffusion Program networks we examined were complex, and
many of the technologies were new. Software applications using the
H.323 standard had to be specially assembled for best results, using
products from different vendors. This was an advantage, and allowed
customization. From the users viewpoint, they were less stable, and
less standardized, than the older H.320 solution, which had come as a
complete solution from one vendor. Also, the H.320 platform had an
installed user base in the community, so an informal help network
existed that users could tap into if problems occurred.
Understandably, respondents adopted a wait and see attitude to the
network. When implemented, they said they would want to be connected,
but in a restricted way so as to circumscribe its effects on the
organization. This is a problem for the network supplier, who would
like to demonstrate that the adopters investment could be amortized
over many uses and applications. Indeed, the new technologies were
designed to support multiple uses and integrate with popular office
solutions (ADSL, for example, can handle voice and data simultaneously
and will work with Ethernet).
But given their complexity and newness,
respondents were cautious. Also, organizational culture and history
influenced their attitude. The government institutions were very
concerned about the security of their data on the I they did
not have much of a culture of data sharing either, and their databases
tended to be proprietary and difficult to access except over secure
intranets. The larger non-profits had access to government databases,
but were somewhat reluctant about sharing their data with other
non-profits. For all these reasons, the mood favored a circumscribed
experimental participation in the new networks. Technology
demonstrations and trials, discussed below, offer a low-cost, low-risk
way for potential adopters to test-drive a technology before adoption.
Knowledge barriers can also afflict technology suppliers. Telephone
companies do not themselves develop all the products and solutions they
sell. Some technologies are more familiar to them than others. ATM is
relatively new to the world, and ATM skills are not common (Nolle,
1999). ADSL and IP fall under the same category. Video conferencing
solutions based on earlier standards (multi-channel video over a DS-3
circuit) had been successfully implemented at major sites during the
first round of the Diffusion P where basically, as one engineer
put it, its all one signal. Contrast this with the second round
technologies, which entailed organizational learning because they were
they meant interfacing with new partners and vendors, and involved
mastering complex new accounting mechanisms necessitated by a pay only
for what you use business model.
What can university-sponsored outreach programs do to help lower
knowledge barriers to technology diffusion?
University-sponsored outreach programs can help in many ways to
transfer technology and knowledge to aid diffusion in communities. They
can help greatly in sustaining technology momentum by deepening the
living knowledge base in communities (by this we mean training human
college students as well as non-profit leaders and staff --
locally to use new technology as well as lead in its planning and
It has been argued that sustained and significant support
from state and federal governments would be needed to realize the high
democratic ideals of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) (see
Schon, 1998). University-sponsored outreach can augment such assistance
by providing ongoing instructional and transfer support using students,
in effect plying the role of a mediating agency (Attewell, 1992) in the
community.
University-sponsored outreach programs played a key role in the
development of four out of the eight networks we studied in this
research. Two of these networks were implemented in the first round of
the Diffusion P the other two will be implemented in the next
year. These four networks together account for $8 million out of the
$50 million Diffusion Program fund, and qualify as significant
initiatives under the program. Functions of a university-sponsored
outreach program could include:
Research and development: Research could be technical or regulatory,
but this is an essential function. The research products should be
distributed among the network steering committee, and the content and
implications of the findings explicated at steering committee meetings.
The research should be led by faculty, and should involve student help
and participation. Software applications development is another service
that we have provided, notably Web-accessible database-enabled
applications.
Technology demonstrations and trials: These provide interested
agencies a chance to check out the technology at l
they help answer three questions that agencies usually have: what is a
Diffusion Program network? What will it do for my institution? And,
When is it going to happen? We are working with several vendors and
service providers to implement 12 trials in the community this summer
using MetroN trials sites will be linked up for three
months, at a minimal or no cost to themselves. Trials and
demonstrations can also be useful to counter vendors who may try to
interest potential adopters in more expensive services by discrediting
actually showing what cost-effective alternatives can
do is a big help to people who are trying to decide.
Class projects: For the past eight years, the first author has
incorporated a one-semester field project assignment in his
Telecommunications Project class.
Graduate and undergraduate students
enrolled in the class for course credit work in teams to provide a
consulting service free of charge to community non-profits.
Thirty-five agencies have taken advantage of this opportunity. Student
projects have ranged from LAN design to telecommunications planning.
Class projects contribute indirectly to the second-generation
networking effort by preparing the non-profits for it
technologically, by helping lay the office technology foundation for
more advanced networking, and psychologically by serving as vehicles of
gradual change in the client organization. Using students in active
learning via technology consulting in the community is an excellent way
to build sustainability into the community change effort.
Client as peripheral participant: The client representative can be a
peripheral participant in the class projects. They may start out as the
project contact person for the student team, and learn with the team as
the project progresses. The following semester, they may graduate into
a higher level of participation, learning along with a different
student project team, as their technical knowledge develops.
happened in the case of roughly half of the 35 clients we have worked
with so far, and has helped deepen the communitys technology knowledge
base by raising awareness about technical matters.
Forging consortia: Social networking with other communities is
invaluable. The authors convened the Upstate Diffusion Networks Group
(UDNG) to serve as a social network for the leadership of the five
Upstate New York communities slated to receive funding under the
Diffusion Program for second-generation network implementation. The
UDNG membership shares technical information and project implementation
updates via a listserv and periodic meetings, and regularly consults
with leaders of implemented Diffusion Program networks. Social
groupings sharing information can be an effective bulwark against a
vendors divide and rule tactics.
As outlined above, knowledge barriers to technology diffusion can
stem from regulatory and business issues. The UDNG group has worked
with the State Public Service Commission on incorporation and Limited
Service Offering (LSO) contractual issues. Institutions like the PSC
can play an important role in helping communities overcome certain
kinds of knowledge barriers.
The community knowledge base can be deepened through activism and
active participation in planning and negotiation meetings. The authors
have played this role with the Syracuse MetroN the two other
university-sponsored outreach programs examined in this research have
also played a similar role in their communities prior to network
implementation.
Major new national connectivity initiatives such as the NII emphasize
equity of access to the Internet and networked resources. While this
should be a non-negotiable goal, knowledge barriers may effectively
block the diffusion of network connectivity, thereby impeding equity of
access, in low-income areas. New York States Diffusion Program is a
multi-million dollar initiative to provide second generation community
networking and Internet access in poor communities across the state.
Based on ongoing research into the network planning/implementation
effort, the authors found knowledge barriers to be a very real concern
in nearly all eight communities studied. The troubling prospect is: if
communities do not have the requisite knowledge
both technical and
to make optimal choices, how can the goals of the NII be
Second generation community networks can be complex, and as
such threaten to exacerbate the technology gap between the haves and
the have-nots. The good news is, university-based technology transfer
outreach programs can play a role in helping lower knowledge barriers
and promote the sustainability of technology diffusion in communities.
Attewell's (1992) knowledge barrier approach to technology diffusion
provides a promising theoretical perspective on second generation
community networking. We have found the approach useful in studying the
diffusion process, while also addressing important issues of equity of
access and developing human capital in communities.
In 1995, The NY State Public Service Commission adopted a
Performance-Based Incentive Regulatory Plan for NYNEX (now Bell
Atlantic). The Plan establishes a regulatory structure to increase
NYNEXs efficiency and provide consumer benefits and protections. The
Plan provides for the distribution of $50 million over five years
beginning September 1, 1995 for advanced telecommunications
infrastructure, customer premises equipment and related training in
economically disadvantaged areas within New York State that otherwise
would not have access to this kind of technology. The Plan also
establishes a Diffusion Program Committee to solicit and evaluate
proposals, and make awards not to exceed $10 million in any single
The Committee consists of representatives from NYNEX, the NYS
Consumer protection Board, the Public Utility Law Project of New York,
the NYS Senate and Assembly, NAACP, the NYS Board of Regents, the
Empire State Development Corporation, the NYS Departments of Health and
State, and the NYS Office of the Advocate for Persons with Disabilities
(from Diffusion Program Guidelines, 1995). The first round of Diffusion
Program funding funded implementation of high-speed networks in New
York City, Buffalo, and the Adirondack area, among others. The second
and last round of the program is funding the networks in Syracuse, the
Binghamton area, Watertown, the Leatherstocking region, and Cortland,
among others.
2. A recent report by the National Strategy for Non-profit Technology
(NSNT) states that most non-profits are hesitant to use technology and
are ill-informed about the impact it could have on their work, and
concludes that the fundamental problems causing this situation are lack
of knowledgeand lack of skills (P.3).
References
Attewell, P. (1992), Technology diffusion and organizational learning:
The case of business computing, Organization Science, 3 (1), 1-19.
Beamish, A. (1998), Approaches to community computing: Bringing
technology to low-income groups, Chapter 15 in D. A. Schon, B. Sanyal,
and W.J. Mitchell, High technology in low-income communities,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eveland, J.D. and L. Tornatzky (1990), The deployment of technology,
Chapter 6 in L. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer, The processes of
technological innovation, Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Nolle, T. (1999), Is it time to reconsider ATM?, Network Magazine,
Schon, D.A. (1998), Introduction, Introduction in D. A. Schon, B.
Sanyal, and W.J.
Mitchell, High technology in low-income communities,
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Victoria Freenet Association. (1994), Free-Net strategic and marketing
Available at
http://freenet.careleton.ca/freeport/freenet/conference2/issues/menu.