Winning the Hardware Software Game Winning the Hardware-Software Game - 2nd Edition

Using Game Theory to Optimize the Pace of New Technology Adoption
  • How do you encourage speedier adoption of your product or service?
  • How do you increase the value your product or service creates for your customers?
  • How do you extract more of the value created by your product or service for yourself?

Read more...

Latest Comments

  • Anonymous said More
    This was excellent and extremely... Tuesday, 21 April 2020
  • Anonymous said More
    Well written. Well constructed. Tuesday, 13 August 2019
  • Ron Giuntini said More
    As always a good read.
    I have always... Thursday, 25 January 2018

Why do we adopt new technologies?

Many people will be quick to respond, “Because they help us do things faster, easier, or better.”

Pretty obvious.

Well, then, why don’t people adopt new technology?

Most people would probably say that people don’t adopt new technology either because the technology is too expensive or because people don’t need the features the technology offers.

But there’s another reason we don’t adopt new technology or make some other change in our lives, even though we’d like to: something is holding us back. There’s an obstacle that’s preventing us from making the change.

I call this obstacle switching costs. Switching costs are an important, yet often overlooked, obstacle to change. In my book, Winning the Hardware-Software Game, I define switching costs as it relates to adoption of new technology as follows.

switching costs encompass any costs or investments consumers must bear when they leave their old products and suppliers and establish themselves with new ones… They can include, for example, any penalties or fees users must pay to break contracts (such as leases) or end agreements with current suppliers to free themselves up to move on to new ones; uninstallation and disposal costs required to remove old system components; equipment and installation costs required to install new systems; time and money costs required to train users to operate new systems; costs associated with downtime while transitioning from old systems and ramping up to obtaining the full benefits of new systems; any costs associated with losing connectivity to users or content that remains on old networks; any risks associated with new systems not living up to expectations, not providing all the expected benefits, ending up requiring more than the expected time or money costs to use, etc.

An important way for convincing people to adopt a new technology, buy a new home, or go to the gym more often is to remove the barriers preventing them from doing so.

I recently heard a commercial on the radio from a company selling new carpet. They said, “We’ll rip up and take away your old carpeting for free.” I smiled and thought to myself, “switching costs.”

I also recently heard Daniel Khaneman, the Behaviorial Psychologist and Nobel Prize Winner, talk about switching costs from a different perspective that I thought was insightful. He said that when people try to get us to do something, they usually use a carrot (offer a reward) or stick (threaten punishment). He said that, instead, it’s actually much each to remove the obstacle that’s preventing us from doing it in the first place. From Mindy Hernandez, “A Conversation with Daniel Kahneman”:

The basic idea of applied psychology is from Kurt Lewin: if we want people to change, how do we make it easy? … Kurt Lewin said: if you want to get people to change, ask why aren't people behaving in ways we or they themselves want? What are the obstacles? And then we need to try to eliminate those obstacles and remove the barriers.

This seems simple and self-evident, but why is removing obstacles instead of adding pressure or incentives so counter-intuitive? Kahneman mentioned the three usual ways we try to induce change:

  • Arguing
  • Promising
  • Threatening

These techniques often fail because we are simply increasing tension rather than easing tension by removing barriers that make behavior change easy.

The idea of removing barriers to change is also the basis for Nudge Theory. This theory gained popularity through a book coauthored by Cass Sunstein and recent Nobelist, Richard Thaler, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Nudge Theory has been used successfully, for example to get more people to save for retirement.

The idea of removing barriers to change also lies at the heart of persuasive technology. Thanks to BJ Fogg, pioneer of Persuasive Technology, the use of persuasive technology on the internet has become pervasive. Persuasive technology is used to remove obstacles that prevent us from buying things or to put up obstacles to keep us from leaving a site. Anthony Wing Kosner “Stanford's School Of Persuasion: BJ Fogg On How To Win Users And Influence Behavior” describes the essence of Fogg’s methodology.

the path of least resistance is to tap existing motivations and make a behavior easier to achieve. Most successful mobile apps create new habits for users by making it easier to do something that they already do or want to do.

Finally, Clayton Christenson, noted scholar in the area of innovation and change, made a similar observation to the “remove barriers to change” concept. The way Clayton Christenson puts it is, “Know Your Customers’ ‘Jobs to Be Done.’” He said that when selling someone a product or service, you have to understand what need you’re satisfying for that person. Once you understand what the need is, you can help your customer meet that need. He gives the example of selling someone a new home. Often people are reluctant to move, not because they don’t like the new home, but because they will be forced to leave something important behind. He noted that home builders are not selling new homes, they’re “moving lives.”

That realization helped Moesta and his team begin to grasp the struggle potential home buyers faced. “I went in thinking we were in the business of new-home construction,” he recalls. “But I realized we were in the business of moving lives.”

Once you think about it, it seems so obvious.

The problem, however, is that when we approach the problem of trying to get people to do something – like adopt a new technology or change their behavior – we generally think about where we want them to go. The trick, however, is to change the question to “why aren’t they already there?”

More Blogs

Cannabis Industry Rollouts: Lessons Learned from States’ Experiences

27-04-2020 - Hits:407 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Bart Schaneman from MJ Business Daily recently released, “2020 Cultivation Snapshot: U.S. Wholesale Marijuana Prices & Supply.” The information contained in the report helped cement certain insights I’ve had about the evolution of the cannabis market. Background info In addition to the myriad other laws and regulations, all states essentially have two...

Read more

A Data-Generating System: A Framework for Data Assessment

14-04-2020 - Hits:342 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Suppose I gave you, the Data Analyst, a dataset of information on sales of Ford automobiles, and suppose I told you to use that dataset to predict total national sales of Ford automobiles for next 12 months. What would you want to know about the data you were given? If you...

Read more

Hemp and CBD Market Supply

06-04-2020 - Hits:314 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

The information in this post was compiled in an attempt to understand 2 issues: Does the cultivation of hemp differ depending on the hemp product supplied (fiber, seed, or flower)? Is the CBD produced from hemp (cannabis with ≤ 0.3% THC) identical to the CBD produced from marijuana (cannabis with > 0.3%...

Read more

Trends in Cannabis Patents Over Time

08-12-2019 - Hits:1400 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Patent Counts by Year I searched the USPTO patent database for all patents for which the patent abstract contained any of the following terms: cannabis, cannabinoid, marijuana, tetrahydrocannabinoid, or cannabinol. My search yielded 914 patents. As seen in Figure 1, there were only a handful of cannabis patents each year until the...

Read more

Why Is Alcohol Accepted While Cannabis Is Not?

24-11-2019 - Hits:1673 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Alcohol Use In America Cannabis Use In America Prevalence and Social Attitudes What Determines an Activity’s Prevalence? Social Attitudes and Laws Social Acceptance: Alcohol vs. Cannabis Social Narratives vs. Reality The Role of Common Knowledge   Both alcohol and cannabis have been around for thousands of years, and both have been used for recreational, spiritual, and medical purposes. Both...

Read more

Social Development Requires More Than Just New Technology

14-10-2019 - Hits:887 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

This post continues the discussion about what society needs in addition to technology to develop. In my previous entry, The Growth and Development Paradox, I established that Technology enables societies to develop. Foundational technologies have existed for thousands of years. Yet, sustainable development didn’t occur until the Industrial Revolution. Technological development is thus not...

Read more

Cannabis Science and Technology Finally Got Hitched!

03-10-2019 - Hits:756 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

The Separate Worlds of Science and Technology Throughout most of human history, science and technology existed within completely separate realms of society. Science, or natural philosophy, fell within the realm of the upper ranks of society. Natural philosophers were “uncommitted to any program of useful knowledge,” developing “abstract speculations about the...

Read more

The Growth and Development Paradox

24-09-2019 - Hits:832 - Ruth Fisher - avatar Ruth Fisher

Wheat yields in the UK hovered around ½ tonne per hectare for hundreds of years (see Figure 1). Imagine being able to generate no more wheat per unit of land than your ancestors who had lived 100 generations before you had been able to grow! The introduction of crop rotation...

Read more