Continuing from the previous post on why your medical innovation might not be adopted as expected, I’ll now explore each of the five factors that Everett Rogers identified in his book Diffusion of Innovations as key determinants of innovation adoption.
You can find the introductory post [here].
As discussed, the five attributes of innovations are:
- Relative Advantage
- Complexity
- Compatibility
- Trialability
- Observability
Let’s examine each factor together, keeping in mind that successful diffusion of an innovative medical product requires consideration of all five.
Relative Advantage
Relative advantage is the most obvious factor. It’s defined as the degree to which a medical innovation is perceived as better than the idea it replaces.
As mentioned, Rogers emphasizes perception across all five attributes. While this may seem trivial, it’s often overlooked. Product managers and startup founders can easily fall in love with their product and project their own perception onto customers.
Customers will adopt a new product only if “they” perceive it as better than what they currently use. Since there are many dimensions by which a product can be considered “better,” it’s essential to investigate this thoroughly.
A common mistake in our industry is to equate relative advantage with technical specifications, new mechanisms, or other outputs that aren’t necessarily tied to customer outcomes.
The type of innovation determines what kind of relative advantage—clinical, economic, social, or psychological—it delivers to adopters.
Importantly, the word relative matters. The advantage is relative to specific customers in a target audience and to a specific context.
As I’ve discussed in a previous article [here], customer needs are not absolute—they’re situational. It’s critical to understand the context: when and where the customer desires a benefit.
This means the same customer may have different needs in different situations.
Moreover, relative advantage is closely tied to the solution the customer is currently using.
Ultimately, while relative advantage is necessary for adoption, it’s not sufficient. As the examples of lemon juice and the Dvorak keyboard show, even a compelling advantage doesn’t guarantee success.
Compatibility
Compatibility measures how consistent a medical innovation is with existing values, past experiences, and the needs of potential adopters. The more compatible an innovation is, the less uncertainty it creates.
Rogers originally examined compatibility from a social and psychological perspective, but today the concept is much broader.
Companies like Apple have leveraged compatibility through integrated systems that simplify adoption for users while creating barriers for competitors. In the medical field, MedTech giants such as Philips, Medtronic, and Siemens use similar strategies with integrated platforms.
Compatibility with Values and Beliefs
Any innovation must align with the cultural values and beliefs of its target customers. Adoption can vary significantly across countries due to cultural differences.
For example, chemotherapy induced hair loss, is one of the most feared side effects of cancer treatment and can be psychologically devastating, especially in Asian cultures. In some cases, patients may even decline potentially curative or life-prolonging treatments due to this side effect. As a result, adoption of drugs with or without this side effect can vary widely across cultures.
Compatibility with Previously Introduced Ideas
An innovation’s compatibility with preceding ideas can either facilitate or hinder adoption. Customers interpret new products through the lens of established practices, which helps reduce uncertainty.
For instance, “me-too” drugs are more compatible than first-in-class drugs because their mechanisms of action are already known. The same applies to second-generation devices.
Negative experiences also matter. A poor experience with a previous innovation can significantly reduce adoption of future, similar innovations.
Compatibility with Needs
Rogers identifies one dimension of compatibility as the degree to which an innovation meets customer needs—whether functional, social, or emotional. When an innovation fulfills these needs, adoption tends to be faster.
Compatibility and Naming
The name of an innovation can affect its compatibility and adoption rate. Many products have been rebranded to facilitate introduction in specific regions.
A compatible name should be globally appealing—easy to pronounce and free of inappropriate or confusing meanings in other languages. For drugs, it’s especially important that the name not resemble another approved drug to avoid prescribing or dispensing errors.
Complexity
Complexity refers to how difficult a medical innovation is to understand and use.
If a product is complex, hard to use, or requires extensive training, adoption will be slower. For example, the introduction of graphical interfaces in the 1990s significantly boosted PC adoption by reducing complexity.
When Intuitive Surgical launched its da Vinci robotic surgical systems—which require substantial training—it partnered with teaching hospitals and university centers to include the system in specialist curricula. This reduced adoption complexity for future users.
Trialability
Trialability is the degree to which a medical innovation can be tested on a limited basis. Products that can be tried reduce uncertainty for adopters, leading to faster adoption.
This factor is especially important for early adopters, who take risks by adopting innovations before the majority. Later adopters, seeing peers already using the product, are less sensitive to trialability.
For medical devices, trialability is crucial. Tools such as cadaver labs, hands-on courses, live surgeries, training centers, testimonials, and webinars are all effective in increasing trialability.
Trialability can also be enhanced through free trials—for example, placing a new product in hospitals at no cost. Once users try the product and see its value, they’re more likely to purchase it.
Observability
Observability is the degree to which the results of a medical innovation are visible to others.
If the outcomes are easily observed and communicated, diffusion is easier. If the innovation is hard to describe or its benefits are not immediately apparent, adoption will be slower.
Marketing plays a key role in observability by making results visible and communicating the value of innovative products.
As with the other factors, observability alone is not enough.
Final Thoughts
According to Rogers, “most of the variance in the rate of adoption of innovation—from 49 to 87 percent—is explained by these five factors.”
Although times have changed, I believe Rogers’ findings remain highly relevant. Simply building a product you consider innovative and expecting rapid adoption is unrealistic.
Instead, remember the importance of perception—and that everything is relative.
When developing your new medical product, focus on delivering a meaningful relative advantage over current solutions. Design it to reduce complexity and increase compatibility. And finally, do everything you can to enhance trialability and observability.
This is a topic I’ve discussed before, and I return to it because I believe it’s crucial to the success of medical innovation.
Let me know what you think about Rogers’ five factors. If there’s anything else you’d like me to cover in this blog, feel free to contact me on LinkedIn—and don’t forget to subscribe.