United States Science Advisory EPA-SAB-EEC-COM-01-001
Environmental Board (1400A) November 2000
Protection Agency Washington DC iviviv.epa.gov/sab
&EPA COMMENTARY RESULTING
FROM A WORKSHOP ON
THE DIFFUSION AND
ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS
IN ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
A COMMENTARY BY THE EPA
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
-------
November 22, 2000
EPA-S AB-EEC-COM-01 -001
Honorable Carol M. Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Subject: Science Advisory Board (SAB) Commentary Resulting from a Workshop on
the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection
Dear Ms Browner:
On June 28, 2000, a new subcommittee of the EPA Science Advisory Board's Environmental
Engineering Committee held a workshop on the "Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in
Environmental Protection" to provide a consultation on three Agency program areas at the request of
the Program Offices. At the workshop, the Subcommittee concluded that the Agency as a whole might
benefit from general advice that would improve the Agency's efforts to diffuse environmental
innovations of potential significant value to adopters. The purpose of this Commentary is to provide this
broader advice.
At the workshop, the Subcommittee on the Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations in
Environmental Protection heard briefings from representatives of the Office of Water on issues
associated with the diffusion and adoption of the Watershed Approach and the use of social science
tools, including community cultural assessment. The Subcommittee also received a briefing from a
representative of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, who spoke about issues associated with
the diffusion of new approaches to Multi-Media Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBT) and pollution
prevention generally. As part of the consultation that occurred at the workshop, individual members of
the Subcommittee provided specific advice to these program representatives. Their goal was to show
how data, theories, and research methods derived from the study of the social process of diffusion and
adoption of innovations could have practical applications to these specific EPA efforts.
After the workshop discussions with program staff, and after hearing two general presentations
by senior managers in the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovations on the past decade of
innovations in environmental protection, the Subcommittee came to a conclusion it believes is important
to the Agency overall in its efforts to diffuse innovations in environmental protection.
The Subcommittee recognizes, from the presentations received and the documentation
provided, including Innovation at the Environmental Protection Agency; A Decade of Progress.,
that the Agency is devoting serious attention to innovation in environmental protection. The
-------
Subcommittee believes that the Agency's commitment to innovation needs to be balanced by an
increased commitment to diffusion of innovations of potential significant value to adopters. From the
information presented before and during the workshop, the Subcommittee concluded that the Agency is
not taking a strategic approach that makes the best use of available information about the diffusion and
adoption of innovations. The Subcommittee believes that the social process of diffusing important new
ideas and approaches is less well understood at EPA than the process for generating new ideas and
approaches. The Agency could benefit from consulting the wide variety of social science literature
related to the effective diffusion and adoption of innovations. EPA could use insights from this body of
research to design well-considered diffusion plans that would guide and facilitate the adoption of
innovations in environmental protection and help to evaluate rigorously their success.
The attached brief commentary sketches the major insights reached by our Subcommittee
members during our short one-day meeting as they apply to: (1) the different frameworks and
approaches available for understanding the diffusion process at EPA; (2) the principal barriers to
diffusion and adoption of innovations; and (3) how EPA can effectively measure the success of its
diffusion and dissemination efforts. The Subcommittee concludes that the Agency would benefit
substantially from a modest research and demonstration effort aimed at utilizing current knowledge in
the social sciences concerning strategies and techniques of diffusing innovations. Future consultations
with the SAB could help the Agency determine the scope and specific directions of that potential
research.
We look forward to responses to this Commentary from the Associate Administrator for the
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, and
the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. In particular, we would
like to know how useful this workshop was to them, and how useful they expect the information
contained in this commentary to be for their programs.
Sincerely,
/s/
Dr. Morton Lippmann, Interim Chair
Science Advisory Board
/s/
Dr. Hilary Inyang, Chair
Environmental Engineering Committee
Science Advisory Board
/s/
Dr. Roger Kasperson, Chair
Subcommittee on the Diffusion and
Adoption of Innovations
Science Advisory Board
-------
NOTICE
This Commentary has been written as a part of the activities of the Science Advisory Board, a
public advisory group providing extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator and
other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Board is structured to provide a balanced,
expert assessment of scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This commentary has
not been reviewed for approval by the Agency; hence, the comments of this report do not necessarily
represent the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of other Federal agencies.
Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
Distribution and Availability: This Science Advisory Board report is provided to the EPA
Administrator, senior Agency management, appropriate program staff, interested members of the
public, and is posted on the SAB website (www.epa.gov/sab). Information on its availability is also
provided in the SAB's monthly newsletter (Happenings at the Science Advisory Board). Additional
copies and further information are available from the SAB Staff.
-------
ABSTRACT
This Commentary reflects advice developed at an SAB Consultative Workshop held on June
28, 2000, by the Environmental Engineering Committee's Subcommittee on the Diffusion and Adoption
of Innovations in Environmental Protection. The purpose of the workshop was to provide specific
advice to the Office of Water and Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to identify how the use of
data, theories, and research methods derived from the study of the social process of diffusion and
adoption of innovations may improve the adoption of innovative approaches to environmental
protection: a) within EPA; b) by state, tribal, and local government partners; and c) by corporate and
non-governmental organization partners in environmental protection.
The Commentary goes beyond the specific advice provided to those program areas to address
more generally: a) the different frameworks and approaches available for understanding the diffusion
process at EPA; b) the principal barriers to diffusion and adoption of innovations; and c) how EPA can
effectively measure the success of its diffusion and dissemination efforts.
The Commentary states that the Agency would benefit substantially from a modest research
and demonstration effort aimed at utilizing current knowledge in the social sciences concerning
strategies and techniques of diffusing innovations.
Key Words: Innovations, Diffusion and Adoption, Environmental Technologies
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Engineering Committee
Subcommittee on Diffusion and Adoption of Innovations
in Environmental Protection
CHAIR
Dr. Roger Kasperson, Clark University, Worcester, MA (SAB Member)
SUBCOMMITTEE
Dr. Frances Berry, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL (SAB Consultant)
Dr. James Dearing, Mchigan State University, East Lansing, MI (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Mary Durfee, Mchigan Technological University, Houghton, MI (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Kenneth Geiser, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Hilary I. Inyang, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA (SAB Member)
Dr. Karlene Roberts, University of California, Berkeley, CA (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Everett Rogers, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Sim Sitkin, Duke University, Durham, NC (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Laura Steinberg, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA (SAB Consultant)
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING COMMITTEE LIAISONS
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Smith College, Northampton, MA (SAB Member)
Dr. Gordon Kingsley, Georgia Tech. School of Public Policy, Atlanta, GA (SAB Consultant)
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Utah State University, River Heights, UT (SAB Member)
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Diana Pozun, Management Assistant, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460
iii
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Engineering Committee (FYOO)
CHAIR
Dr. Hilary I. Inyang, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA
MEMBERS
Dr. Edgar Berkey, Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA
Dr. Calvin C. Chien, E. I. DuPont Company, Wilmington, DE
Dr. Barry Dellinger, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Mr. Terry Foecke, Waste Reduction Institute, St. Paul, MN
Dr. Nina Bergan French, SKY+, Oakland, CA
Dr. Domenico Grasso, Smith College, Northampton, MA
Dr. Byung Kim, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn MI
Dr. Gordon Kingsley, Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Dr. John P. Maney, Environmental Measurements Assessment, Hamilton, MA
Dr. Michael J. McFarland, Utah State University, River Heights, UT
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD STAFF
Ms. Kathleen Conway, Designated Federal Officer, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S.
EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Mary Winston, Management Assistant, EPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. PROCESS MODELS 3
3. BARRIERS AND ENABLING FACTORS 8
4. MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF DIFFUSION EFFORTS 10
5. DIFFUSION PLANS 12
6. NOTES R-l
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP,
JUNE 28, 2000 A-l
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
On June 28, 2000, the Science Advisory Board's Subcommittee on Diffusion and Adoption of
Innovations in Environmental Protection met to provide advice requested by three Agency programs.
The purpose was to provide practical advice from individual Subcommittee members to staff in EPA's
Office of Water and Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. This advice concerned how they might
improve the diffusion of new approaches to environmental protection through use of insights researchers
have gained from the study of the social process of diffusion and adoption of innovations. A record of
the advice provided may be found in the minutes of the meeting, attached to this Commentary in
Appendix A. These minutes have been accepted by the Chair and the members of the Subcommittee.
The purpose of this document is to convey a broader message to the Agency based on the
conversations that occurred during the one-day workshop, including conversations with managers from
the Office of Policy, Economics and Innovations and review of materials received in advance of the
Workshop. The Subcommittee believes that if the Agency desires to diffuse new approaches to
environmental protection more broadly, both within and outside the Agency, EPA's commitment to
innovation needs to be better balanced by an increased commitment to diffuse innovations. The
Subcommittee believes that the Agency could benefit from a better understanding of the social
processes of diffusion of innovations and from the use of data, theories, and research methods derived
through the study of those processes by social scientists.
This Commentary will sketch some of the Subcommittee's general advice to the Agency on
how it might explore and apply insights from a variety of research to the general problem of diffusion of
innovations. The Commentary is organized to address three general questions that relate to all the
program areas discussed during the Consultative Workshop held on June 28, 2000 and to the broader
issue of diffusion of innovations for EPA:
a) What are the principal models available for understanding the diffusion process?
1) What is the role of information and information flow in diffusion and adoption of
innovations? How can EPA become more effective in disseminating
information?
2) What have we learned about designing appropriate incentives for facilitating the
adoption process?
3) How important are social networks to the process of diffusion and adoption of
innovation? How can EPA better recognize and use such networks?
-------
4) What can EPA learn from diffusion efforts undertaken by other partners in
environmental protection (state and local agencies, tribes, non-governmental
organizations, and corporations)
b) What are the principal barriers to diffusion and adoption of innovations in selected EPA
program areas?
c) How can EPA effectively measure the success of its efforts to encourage diffusion and
adoption of innovations?
This Commentary will sketch the Subcommittee's response to these questions, based on
discussions at the Consultative Workshop and materials received beforehand. It will also offer some
specific recommendations indicating how the Agency might develop plans designed specifically to
increase the success of diffusion of new ideas and approaches.
-------
2. PROCESS MODELS
The Subcommittee believes that EPA would benefit from developing strategic plans focused on
the diffusion of innovations and from understanding that such plans are different from plans used for
communicating or marketing new ideas to individual people. The latter focus on individual persons or
even groups acting independently from one another, while diffusion-based strategies assume a social
relationship among potential adopters of an innovation and seek to make use of existing relationships
and the influence among the people who are party to those relationships to encourage adoption of the
innovation.
One well-established framework for understanding the process of diffusion is found in the
"Diffusion of Innovations" (Rogers 1995). That book, which is a primary source for understanding
diffusion, defines diffusion as a process by which an innovation is communicated through certain
channels over time among members of a social system.l It presents a framework with four main
elements: a) characteristics of the innovation; b) communication channels; c) time; and d) the concept of
critical mass.
The framework suggests that certain innovations will be adopted more rapidly than others if
they have five characteristics. Innovations are diffused more readily if they are perceived by individuals
as having greater relative advantage. They also need to be compatible with existing values, past
experiences, and needs of potential adopters. Widely diffused innovations are marked by of
"trialability;" i.e., they may be experimented with on a limited basis. The results of the innovation need
to be visible to others. Finally, such innovations are marked by a relative lack of complexity and are
perceived as easy to understand and use.
The framework also suggests that choice of channels for communicating an innovation is a key
to its successful diffusion. Most individuals evaluate an innovation on the basis of the experience of
peers who have adopted it and not on the basis of scientific research by experts.
The dimension of time is also key to the framework. The framework describes the process of
an individual's decision making regarding an innovation and the phases involved. There are five
categories among members of a social system, who generally adopt innovations in sequential stages and
at a fairly predictable rate: a) innovators; b) early adopters; c) early majority; d) late majority; and e)
laggards.
The final part of the diffusion framework is the concept of critical mass, which occurs at the
point at which enough individuals have adopted an innovation so that the innovation's further rate of
1 Social system is a term used in a variety of ways in the social sciences. As used in this report, a social system is a
set of members or components (people, institutions, communities) with rules and relationships by which they
interact, and ongoing communications among them.
-------
adoption becomes self-sustaining. The framework stresses that early adopters are instrumental in
moving an innovation to the point of critical mass, and hence, in the successful diffusion of an innovation.
Knowledge, ideas, norms, beliefs, services, and products have all been considered innovations
in diffusion studies. The framework for diffusion research developed from the successful diffusion of
hybrid seed corn among Iowa farmers in the 1940s. Recent studies have traced the diffusion of the
innovation of kindergarten across cultures throughout the world (Wollons, 2000); the spread of policies
favoring school choice among the 50 states (Mintrom, 2000); and the diffusion of tobacco control
throughout North America (Studlar, 1999). The U.S. EPA has sponsored diffusion research about
perceptions of EPA-funded hazardous waste clean-up technologies by industrial scientists, state
environmental regulators, and consulting engineers (Dealing, Meyer, and Kamierczak, 1994).
Members of the Subcommittee provided the Office of Water and Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics with suggestions about application of the framework and the potential use of other results from
diffusion research to their work at the Workshop on June 28, 2000 (see Appendix A for the specifics
of those conversations).
The framework for diffusion has a number of distinctive features. It defines diffusion as a social
process and suggests that the extent of the flow of information through social channels can be more
important than the actual content of the information in the communication. It distinguishes the process
of diffusion from the original innovation and stresses the importance of identifying individuals within a
social system who are perceived as influential by the target individuals. Based on this framework, the
central tasks for EPA are: a) to understand networks in the organizations and social systems that
facilitate the flow of information to key individuals who can influence others - and to understand that
those key individuals may not just be those who have formal power or authority; and b) to identify and
assess barriers that can impede this information flow or the adoption of the innovation.
These tasks suggest that the Agency needs to identify clearly the targets of the diffusion effort
and also understand their behavior and social systems. The Agency might conduct in-depth social
network analysis, employing a tool like the draft community cultural assessment guide, developed by the
Office of Water and discussed at the Workshop, to understand the perceptions of influential individuals
or groups in a social system, or work with organizations such as business associations or communities
to understand how they might encourage adoption of new approaches (see Clarke, 1998, for examples
of social networks in business and how they were used for cleaner technology diffusion).
The identification of influential people in diffusion processes can be accomplished in at least four
ways: through the conduct of a quantitative social network analysis, or, when such detail isn't feasible or
desirable, through informant ratings of others, self-ratings of social influence, or personal observation of
social behavior (Weimann, 1994). EPA would then tailor a diffusion plan to particular influential groups
or persons.
-------
State pollution prevention programs have developed various techniques for promoting the
diffusion of cleaner technologies. For instance, the Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Program has
used sector-specific focus groups, state-trained and certified "toxics use reduction planners," grants to
community organizations, and publically accessible technology demonstrations at industrial facilities to
promote awareness of new technologies and to stimulate dialogue among influential individuals.
The study of social networks2 may be used to supplement the framework described above.
Research on such networks suggests that individuals or groups located in two or more networks that
are not normally in contact with each other can be especially influential in transferring ideas and
becoming opinion leaders (Burt, 1990; 1995). The Subcommittee believes, for example, that groups
like Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), which function as both regulators and regulatees and
which share networks with many other organizations, present strategic targets for EPA because of their
influence over a wide variety of other entities.
For EPA, it may also be possible to motivate individuals and organizations to adopt innovations
by highlighting the risks of maintaining the status-quo. Research indicates that firms in the Great Lakes
first undertook pollution prevention efforts due to regulatory pressures (Durfee, 1999). Some of these
firms now engage in continuous change because they see it as conferring competitive advantage. As
multiple firms view innovation as conferring a competitive edge, diffusion may take hold. Competition
among socially equivalent individuals or firms can make sticking with old ideas and technology look less
attractive. The more that firms see a competitive advantage to an innovation, the more risky the policy
of no change becomes. EPA may thus consider using regulations or information-based programs like
the Toxic Release Inventory as tools to advance innovations in environmental protection. Preliminary
analysis of industrial print coverage of pollution prevention, for example, indicates that the main driver
for the adoption of pollution prevention is cost savings, with environmental and safety benefits as
secondary goals (Fan and Durfee, 1998).
General conceptual models exist for analyzing the diffusion of innovations. Developed to
understand state policy innovations, they can be applied to the diffusion process generally. They fall
into four different types: a) the national interaction model; b) the regional diffusion model; c) the
leader-laggard model; and d) the vertical influence models (Berry and Berry, 1999).
a) The national interaction model (Gray, 1973) assumes a national communication
network among state or local officials in which officials learn about programs in other
states. This learning model was developed by communication theorists to analyze the
diffusion of an innovation through a social system of individuals. When the cumulative
proportion of adopters is graphed against time, the familiar S-shaped curve described in
the Diffusion of Innovations appears.
2 Social networks, as used in this report, refers to a complex of interacting social units that are tied together by
communication linkages.
-------
b) The regional diffusion model assumes that entities are influenced primarily by other
entities that are geographically close to them, or in the same region. Neighbor models
assume that states are influenced primarily by those states with which they share a
border (see, for example, Berry and Berry, 1990), while fixed region models assume
that the nation is divided into multiple regions and that states tend to emulate the policies
of other states within the same region (Mooney and Lee, 1995 and Mooney and Lee,
1999). Reasons for emulating each other include learning, shared cultures, competition
and public pressure. While regional identity is probably not as strong as it was 60 years
ago, there is still considerable evidence that regional influence affects policy diffusion.
c) The leader-laggard model assumes that certain entities are pioneers in the adoption of a
policy, or a type of policy, policies, and that other entities emulate these leaders in a
learning process. This model can incorporate either regional or national leaders. In
environmental policy, one assessment of the top innovative states has named: Maine,
Oregon, Connecticut, New York, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island and
Wisconsin as the top ranking states (Hall and Ken, 1991). EPA might consider
targeting these states or other states recognized as regional or national leaders to
spearhead the diffusion process.
d) In the vertical influence model states and other organizations emulate the national
government both through policy learning, and because of incentives that the federal
government provides. Typically these are financial incentives from a grant-in-aid
program. Welch and Thompson in a 1980 study found that policies for which the
federal government offers financial incentives diffuse faster than policies lacking such
incentives (Welch and Thompson, 1980).
Process models also suggest the importance of "policy entrepreneurs," the people who develop
ideas and, more importantly, the people who promote ideas in the policy arena or in an Agency. The
work of political scientists on policy entrepreneurs has shown how they bring their personal credibility,
their effective communication and problem-solving skills, their networks of friendships and power, their
ability to redefine innovations to the specific setting, and their cheerleading when things bog down (see
Berry and Flowers, 1999; Roberts and King, 1996; Howell and Higgins, 1990; and Doig and
Hargrove, 1987). This research likens the policy entrepreneur to the pilot who navigates the
treacherous terrain that ideas and innovations face to bring them safely into port. Thus policy
entrepreneurs are necessary, if not sufficient, for policy adoption and implementation to occur, and
cultivating them may have special importance for EPA.
Finally, the Subcommittee suggests that EPA, when attempting to diffuse innovations, give
attention to the characteristics of the organizations it is trying to affect and ask "how fertile is the ground
for the innovation?" It is essential for the Agency to identify the attributes of organizations that quickly
recognize an innovation when it becomes available and act on this recognition. In efforts to diffuse
-------
innovations to states, businesses, and community organizations, it would be helpful to pick on an
"appropriate intermediate target" that can recognize an innovation, act on it, and then influence others.
Research in organizational sciences suggests that some organizations have developed
capabilities for innovation that may guide the Agency in choosing organizations likely to be successful
targets for diffusion (Abrahamson, 1997; Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Damanpour, 1991; Dewar and
Button, 1986; Ettlie et al, 1984; and Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981). In these organizations,
capabilities for innovation apply both to the routine and familiar and to new tasks and problems (Cohen
and Levinthal, 1990; Dewar and Button, 1989; Duncan, 1976; and Nord and Tucker, 1987). Such
organizations have approached these kinds of innovations in a systematic way, through refraining
problems, incentives, goal setting, and training (Bartunek, 1988; March, 1991; Sitkin et al., 1992;
Sutcliffe et al., 2000; and Wildavksy, 1988). Research suggests that their propensity for innovation and
risk is not an inherent trait. Instead, the ability and willingness to take risks are cumulative; they build up
over time as organizations develop experience in dealing with risks and innovation (Barney, 1995;
Christmann, 2000; Henderson, 1994; Henderson and Cockburn, 1994; Jelinek and Schoonhoven,
1990; March and Shapira, 1987; Sitkin, 1995; Sitkin and Pablo, 1992; and Van de Yen et al., 1989).
Individual perceptions of threats and opportunities are mediated by their cultural and structural
context — and organizations form one of the most significant influences on how potential innovations are
viewed and how their anticipated impact will be perceived (Abrahamson, 1997; Dougherty, 1992;
Kimberly, 1979; Kimberly and Evanisko, 1981; Lei et al., 1996; and Van de Yen et al., 1989). Some
organizations are better absorbers of new approaches and technologies because of their top leadership,
their culture, their procedures, or their personnel (Bantel and Jackson, 1989; Barney, 1986; Cohen and
Levinthal, 1989; and Cardinal, in press). Yet others are better facilitators of individuals' adoption of
innovations due to an ability to reduce barriers to adoption or an ability to increase incentives for
adoption (Adler and Borys, 1996; and Sitkin et al., 1994).
Part of the promise of this literature on diffusion for EPA is the user-centered perspective that it
can bring to the Agency. This view suggests that, ultimately, the perspectives of innovation developers
do not matter much; the perspectives of potential adopters matter a great deal. Research clearly shows
the high degree of reinvention of innovations that occurs after users adopt innovations, including those
from Federal agencies (Dealing et al., 1998).
-------
3. BARRIERS AND ENABLING FACTORS
The Subcommittee finds that the Agency is aware of many barriers involved in the diffusion of
innovations in environmental protection, for example: a) innovations that prevent adverse effects from
occurring, like most innovations in environmental protection, tend to have a relatively slow adoption
rate; b) innovations in large, complex organizations are more complicated and slower; c) innovations
are difficult in organizations where standard operating procedures are deeply ingrained and resistant to
change; and d) a tradition of solving environmental problems issue-by-issue and medium-by-medium
frustrates new approaches.
There are, however, some barriers to innovation that merit more attention in the Agency. At
times, EPA's environmental innovations involve multiple, complex goals or changes. A single innovation
can affect targets as diverse as states, watershed groups, other federal agencies, agricultural interests,
and EPA itself, as in one diffusion effort discussed at the workshop . The Subcommittee believes that
the more clearly the Agency can define and focus its diffusion efforts, the more effective the diffusion
efforts will be. Similarly, the more clearly EPA can identify the specific persons, organizations or
entities that it seeks to adopt innovations, the better the diffusion strategy will be (Huber and Glick,
1993; Van de Yen et al., 1999).
Another barrier is EPA's past inability to take full advantage of its unique set of relationships
with groups interested in and affected by environmental protection programs. Although the Agency is in
contact with many networks that are not normally in contact with each other by virtue of its many
clients, these relationships are not used fully as important resources for the Agency. Such relationships
can be used as resources only when individuals in the Agency can knit their different networks together,
both within EPA and with its many partners.
Additional significant barriers to successful diffusion of innovations are the Agency's lack of
expertise in the social and organizational sciences and its lack of recognition of the need to study social
groups, networks, and agents of change. Policymakers appear to be willing to invest in research on the
behavior of brown trout, or a species of chemical, or an environmental technology, but are far less
willing to invest in research on the values and behavior of individuals who they hope will adopt change.
Yet those individuals are often the sources of environmental stress and the source of solutions to
environmental problems. The Subcommittee believes that the EPA needs to understand more fully that
successful diffusion programs require a well-conceived strategy for success.
Major factors that enhance the successful diffusion of innovations are discussed above in
Section 3 and described in detail in the Diffusion of Innovations. Previous diffusion research provides
a valuable basis for fine-tuning innovations prior to attempts at diffusion to ensure that potential
adopters (such as Agency managers) perceive the innovation positively. For example, the attributes of
innovations that mark them as mostly likely to be diffused successfully (see above, Section 2) can be
-------
used to assess perceptions for EPA innovations of all types, from technical to managerial. Innovation
attributes can also be used when Agency personnel seek to learn which of a set of similar innovations
are most positively perceived by potential adopters (Bearing and Meyer, 1994).
Finally, the Agency might take advantage of the public's good will regarding environmental
protection when crises arise, as several other Agencies have done, to increase public awareness of the
benefits associated with innovations. EPA might learn from the example of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), which has consciously tried to use knowledge of health crises in a
strategic way to advance innovations. As policy analysts (Kingdon, 1995) have argued, "policy
windows" exist where the prospects for change are greatly enhanced. When there is advance
knowledge of a health crisis, one of the units at CDC designs a strategy before the event to take
advantage of that opportunity to promote changes that would have prevented the crisis. The unit also
designs a program on the anniversary of the crisis for the same purpose.
-------
4. MEASURING THE SUCCESS OF DIFFUSION EFFORTS
The Workshop indicated that Agency representatives involved in diffusion efforts are often
uncertain what success involves and what metrics for success might be. Defining, measuring, and
evaluating the success of efforts to diffuse innovations in environmental protection need to be part of the
Agency's overall approach to innovation. These elements are necessary for several reasons. They
make innovations attractive and operational, since almost every state and local government has adopted
performance-based budgeting. Staff in state legislatures, state agencies, and other large organizations
are seeking outcome and output models for their programs (Wholey, 1999; Berry, Brower, and
Flowers, 2000; and Newcomer, 1997) .
Evaluation is also needed so that the Agency can communicate clearly the nature of specific
innovations and their benefits to those EPA hopes will adopt the new ideas, approaches, or
technologies. Defining, measuring, and evaluating success in the diffusion of innovations will also help
the Agency manage and refine its approach to environmental management. Experience across the
federal government, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture and EPA's own Brownfield program,
has suggested several models of how the Agency might proceed in developing in evaluating innovations,
especially the link between new programs and applied
research and policy goals (Marshall and Bennett, 1998).
Well-designed approaches to measurement and evaluation depend on the characteristics of the
particular innovation to be diffused, the intended target, the nature of the barriers, and the Agency's
goal in diffusing the particular innovation. The Subcommittee suggests that a program to evaluate the
success of particular diffusion efforts be designed not only to collect useful information for those efforts
but also to provide larger insights and systematic learning on EPA's efforts to diffuse innovations
generally. Such a program might address the following elements: a) was the innovation adequately
communicated?; b) did EPA understand the social networks among the target entities?; c) were data
captured on the numbers/proportion of entities potentially able to adopt it that actually did?; d) were
implementation and use of the innovation measured, and not just the adoption of a policy?; e) were
measures of expected behavioral or process changes resulting from the innovation tracked and used for
evaluation and assessment of success?; f) were models employed examining relationships among
activities, environmental outcomes, and indicators/measures?; g) were data assembled on why the
innovation was or was not adopted? If models for such measurement and evaluation are not readily
available, EPA would benefit from developing some case studies evaluating the diffusion of innovations
and providing the results as interim guidance.
It is important that EPA communicate that such case studies and guidance are provisional, so
that potential adopters are not deterred by inflexible that would squelch one of the key characteristics of
successful innovations—the potential for reinvention. Adaptation and successful response to changing
problems are hallmarks of innovative organizations (Sitkin et al, 1994; Sutlcliffe et al., 2000; and Van
10
-------
de Ven et al., 1999). Measurement and evaluation must not erect impediments to adopting and
adapting environmental protection innovations EPA wishes to promote (Cardinal, in press; Jelinek and
Schoonhoven, 1990; March, Sproull, and Tamuz, 1991; Jaeger and Baliga, 1985; and Tamuz, 1987).
11
-------
5. DIFFUSION PLANS
EPA experiences in diffusion of innovations at the Workshop revealed that such efforts
currently tend to proceed in an ad hoc manner, usually based on the particular insights of the personnel
charged with the task, with very general and sometimes ambiguous goals and limited resources. It is
apparent that significant improvements in current diffusion practice could be achieved through the
development of strategic diffusion plans preceding the initiation of any Agency efforts so that specific
objectives are stated, analysis of potential obstacles conducted, specification and analysis of target
groups undertaken, strategic approaches designed, evaluation strategies identified, and needed
resources and implementation time frames estimated. In other words, the Agency should bring to its
diffusion of innovation efforts the same kind of rigorous analysis and planning that would be used in
establishing a program of scientific research and assessment.
The Subcommittee suggests that the Agency develop a guidance document to assist in the
development of these diffusion plans and that this document be regularly updated and improved based
on evaluation results. It is beyond the scope of the purposes of this first workshop to specify what the
content of these diffusion plans should be and how they may best be designed. A careful retrospective
assessment of representative Agency experience to date, combined with the state of knowledge from
diffusion research, could provide a sound basis for such a guidance document.
In the Subcommittee's view, the guidance document and these Agency diffusion plans, should
address such issues as:
a) Objectives. The objectives of the diffusion effort should be clearly and specifically set
forth. The objectives should be realistic, take account of existing obstacles and Agency
resources, and (wherever possible) adopt quantitative targets. These objectives will be
essential for defining success and for designing the evaluation program.
b) Target Groups. Who are the targets of the diffusion effort and what are the
characteristics of their organizations and behavior that will bear upon their decision to
adopt an innovation? Understanding and mapping the patterns of relationships within
and across the organizations that the Agency hopes to influence is an essential element
of prospective diffusion success.
c) Barriers. Prospective anticipated barriers to diffusion should be specified and assessed.
One barrier is not knowing who influences whom in a community or organization.
Another barrier is not knowing the potential significant value of the innovation to the
adopters.
12
-------
d) Diffusion Strategy. Based upon the results of the three tasks above, a diffusion strategy
should be formulated. Who will be the likely early adopters, who the laggards? In light
of the barriers above, what specific techniques and approaches are likely to be most
effective?
e) Resources and Time Frames. A diffusion plan should include an estimate of the
resources—financial, personnel, expertise—that will be required for successful
implementation. Resource needs in such complicated areas as organizational behavior,
community culture, and social network should be anticipated and identified.
f) Evaluation An evaluation strategy and procedures should be set forth, including the
desirability of beginning the evaluation early so that baselines can be established and
adaptions made to the innovation by adopters can be identified and incorporated into
the diffusion program as appropriate. These evaluations should be shared broadly
within the Agency to build an overall knowledge base.
g) Peer Review. Like other strategy documents, these diffusion plans should be peer
reviewed before action and implementation actually goes forward.
13
-------
6. REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. 1997. Social network effects on the extent of innovation diffusion.
Organization Science 8(3): 289-309
Adler, P. S., and Borys, B. 1996. Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive.
Administrative Science Quarterly 41: 61-89
Bantel, K. A. and Jackson, S.E. 1989. Top management and innovations in banking:
Does the composition of the top team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal
10:107-114
Barney, J. 1986. Organizational culture: can it be a sustained competitive advantage?
Academy of Management Review 11: 656-666
Barney, J. 1995. Looking inside for competitive advantage. Academy of Management
Executive 9: 49-62
Bartunek, J.M. 1988. The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In R.E.
Quinn and K.S. Cameron, (Eds.), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in
Orgnization and Management. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 137-162
Berry, Frances S. and Berry, William P. 1990. State Lottery Adoptions as Policy
Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84: 395-415
Berry, Frances S. and Berry, William P. 1999. Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy
Research. In Paul D. Sabatier, ed. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Co.:Westview Press:
169-201
Berry, Frances S., Brower, Ralph S., and Flowers, Geraldo. 2000. Implementing
Performance Accountability in Florida: What Changed, What Mattered, and What Resulted?
Public Productivity and Management Review, 23: 338-358
Berry, Frances S., and Flowers, G.E. 1999. Public Entrepreneurs in The Policy Process:
Performance-based Budgeting in Florida. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting, and Financial
Management 11: 578-617
Burt, Ronald S. 1995. Structural Holes : The Social Structure of Competition.
Cambridge: Belknap Press.
R- 1
-------
Burt, Ronald S. 1999. The Social Capital of Opinion Leaders. The Annals of The American
Academy of Political and Social Science 566: 37-54
Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of best practices of environmental management on cost
advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal 43(4): 663-680
Clark, Sarah. 1998. Sustainable Technology Management: The Role of Networks of
Learning. In Nigel Roome, (Ed.), Sustainability Strategies for Industry. Washington, D.C.: Island
Press: 145-167
Cardinal, L. B. In press. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: The
use of organizational control in managing research and development. Organization Science.
Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning
and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-152
Damanpour, F. 1991. Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of
determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 555-590
Bearing James W., and Meyer, Gary. 1994 An exploratory tool for predicting adoption
decisions. Science Communication 16(1): 43-57
Bearing, James W., Meyer, Gary, and Kazmierczak, Jeff. 1994. Portraying the new:
communication between university innovators and potential users. Science Communication 16(1):
11-42
Bearing, James W. R., Larson, Sam, Randall, Lisa M., and Pope, Randall S. 1998. Local
reinvention of the CDC HIV prevention community planning initiative. Journal of Community
Health 23: 113-126
Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. 1986. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:
An empirical analysis. Management Science 32: 1422-1433
Doig, Jameson.W., and Hargrove, Erwin C., (Eds.). 1987. Leadership and Innovation: A
Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press
Dougherty, D. 1992. Interpretive barriers to successful product innovation in large firms.
Organization Science 3: 179-202
Duncan, R. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for
innovation. In R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy and D.P. Slevin, (Eds.), The management of organization
design. New York: North-Holland, 1, 167-188
R-2
-------
Durfee, Mary. 1999. Diffusion of Pollution Prevention Policy. The Annals of The
American Academy of Political and Social Science 566: 108-119
Ettlie, I.E., Bridges, W. P., and O'Keefe, R. D. 1984. Organization strategy and
structural differences for radical versus incremental innovation. Management Science 30:
682-695.
Fan, David, and Durfee, Mary. 1998. A Press Analysis of Pollution Prevention and
Pollution Control, Poster presentation for the 39th Annual meeting of the International Studies
Association. Minneapolis, MN
Gray, Virginia. 1973. Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study. American Political
Science Review 67: 1174-85
Hall, Robert, and Ken, Mary Lee, eds., 1991. 1991-1992 Green Index. Canelo, CA: Island
Press, p. 145
Henderson, R.M. 1994. The evolution of integrative capability: Innovation in
cardiovascular drug discovery. Industrial and Corporate Change 3(3): 607-630
Henderson, R.M. and Cockburn, I. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects
in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal 15: 63-84
Howell, Jane M., and Higgins, Chris A. 1990. Champions of Change. Business Quarterly
54:31-36
Huber, G, and Glick, W. 1993. Organizational change and redesign. New York: Oxford
Jaeger, A. M. and Baliga, R. 1985. Control systems and strategic adaptation: Lessons
from the Japanese experience. Strategic Management Journal 6: 115-134
Jelinek, M. and C.B. Schoonhoven. 1990. Innovation marathon: Lessons from high
technology firms. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell
Kimberly, J. R. 1979. Issues in the creation of organizations: Initiation, innovation, and
institutionalization. Academy of Management Journal 22: 437-457
Kimberly, J.R. and Evanisko, M. J. 1981. Organizational innovation: The influence of
individual, organizational, and contextual factors in hospital adoption of technical and
administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal 24: 689-713
R-
-------
Kingdon. John W 1995. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Pub.Co.
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., and Bettis, R. 1996. Dynamic core competencies through
meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management 22: 549-569
March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science 21(1): 71-87
March, J. G., and Shapira, Z. 1987. Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking.
Management Science 33: 1404-1418
March, J. G., Sproull, L., and Tamuz, M. 1991. Learning from samples of one or fewer.
Organization Science 2(1): 1-13
Marshall, Mary G., and Bennett, Claude F. 1998. National Extension Targeted Water
Quality Program 1992-1995; Aggregation and Synthesis of State Extension Service Plans of
Work and Accomplishment Reports in Response to Federal Equity Funding. Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Cooperative
Agreement No. 93-EWQI-1-9052
Mntrom, Mchael. 2000. Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press
Mooney, Christopher Z, and Lee, Mei-Hsien. 1995. Legislating morality in the American
States; the Case ofPre-Roe Abortion Regulation Reform. American Journal of Political Science
39: 599-627
Mooney, Christopher Z, and Lee, Mei-Hsien. 1999. Morality Policy Reinvention: State
Death Penalties. The Annals of The American Academy of Political and Social Science 566: 80-93
Nord, W.R. and Tucker, S. 1987. Implementing routine and radical innovations.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Newcomer, Kathryn N. 1997. Using Performance Measurement to Improve Public and
Nonprofit Programs. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 75. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers
Roberts, Nancy C. and King, Paula J. 1996. Transforming Public Policy: Dynamics of
Policy Entrepreneur ship and Innovation. San Francisco, CA.: Jossey Bass Publishers
Rogers, Everett. 1995. Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press
R-4
-------
Sitkin, Sim B. 1995. On the positive effect of legalization on trust. Research on
Negotiation in Organizations 5: 185-217
Sitkin, Sim, and Pablo, A. 1992. Reconceptualizing the determinants of risk behavior.
Academy of Management Review 17(1): 9-38
Sitkin, Sim B., Sutcliffe, K.M., and Schroeder, River G. 1994. Distinguishing control from
learning in Total Quality Management: A contingency perspective. Academy of Management
Review 19: 537-564
Studlar, Donley T. 1999. Diffusion of tobacco control in North America. The Annals of
The American Academy of Political and Social Science 566:68-79
Sutcliffe, K. M., Sitkin, S. B. and Browning, L. D. 2000. Tailoring process management to
situational requirements: Beyond the control and exploration dichotomy. In R. Cole and W. R.
Scott, (Eds.), The quality movement and organizational theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications 315-330
Tamuz, M. 1987. The impact of computer surveillance on air traffic safety reporting.
Columbia Journal of World Business 22: 69-77
Van de Ven, A., Venkataraman, S., Polley, D., and Garud, R. 1989. Processes of new
business creation in different organizational settings. In A. Van de Ven, H. Angle, and M. S.
Poole, (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation. New York: Ballinger
Welch, Susan, and Thompson, Kay. 1980. Impact of Federal Incentives on State Policy
Innovations. American Journal of Political Science 24: 715-729.
Weimann, Gabriel. 1994. The Influentials: People Who Influence People. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press
Wholey, Joe S. 1999. Performance-Based Management: Responding to the Challenges.
Public Productivity and Management Review 22: pp. 288-307
Wildavksy, A. 1988. Searching for safety. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books
Wollons, Roberta . Kindergartens and Cultures: The Global Diffusion of An Idea. 2000.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
R-5
-------
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY MINUTES OF PUBLIC WORKSHOP,
JUNE 28, 2000
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Committee: Environmental Engineering Committee, Subcommittee on the Diffusion
and Adoption of Innovations in Environmental Protection
Summary Minutes of Public Workshop
Date and Time: June 28, 2000, 9:00 a.m.-5:20 p.m.
Location: Ariel Rios North Building, Room 5530
Purpose: To provide advice on the diffusion and adoption of innovations in three EPA
program areas; to answer specific charge questions related to the diffusion and adoptions of innovations
in environmental protection.
Attendees: SAB Members and Consultants: Dr. Roger Kasperson (chair), Dr. Frances Berry,
Dr. James Dealing, Dr. Mary Durfee, Dr. Kenneth Geiser, Dr. Hilary I. Inyang , Dr. Gordon Kingsley,
Dr. Karlene Roberts (by teleconference), Dr. Everett Rogers, Dr. Sim Sitkin, Dr. Laura Steinberg, Dr.
Dominico Grasso, Dr. Michael McFarland and Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Official (DFO,
EPA, SAB staff). Other persons attending for the purpose of making presentations: Dr. Jay Benforado
(EPA, Office of Policy Economics and Innovation), Dr. Claude Bennett, (USD A), Thomas Murray
(EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics), Ms. Betsy Smith (EPA, Office of Policy Economics
and Innovation), Ms. Theresa Trainor (EPA, Office of Water), and Ms. Louise Wise (EPA, Office of
Water).
Meeting Summary
Dr. Roger Kasperson, Chair of the Workshop, opened the session at 9:05 a.m. He welcomed
members and consultants, reviewed the agenda, and discussed the charge questions. He called on the
Subcommittee members who specialize in the study of diffusion of innovations to provide specific ideas
that would be useful to Agency people "in the firing line." He suggested that the Subcommittee had a
two-part task: to provide responses to the questions brought by individual EPA program areas and to
address the general charge questions regarding the adoption and diffusion of innovation as described in
the FEDERAL REGISTER notice.
Dr. Kasperson described some of the background for the Science Advisory Board's (SAB)
organizing the workshop. The SAB has an interest in strengthening the EPA's use of the social sciences
for environmental protection and has several activities, including a lecture series, underway to advance
this goal. He mentioned that a subcommittee member, Dr. Everett Rogers, had presented a lecture in
A- 1
-------
this series on May 31, 2000. Dr. Kasperson thanked the SAB's Environmental Engineering Committee
(EEC) for sponsoring the subcommittee as an activity linked to its interest in the introduction of pollution
prevention and other technologies. Dr. Angela Nugent, the DFO, mentioned that the EPA's
Reinvention Action Council, a cross-Agency group of high-level managers, currently were examining
how the Agency might best diffuse beneficial innovations and that the Agency had recently published a
report, "Innovation at the Environmental Protection Agency," which was provided to the
Subcommittee.
Dr. Hilary Inyang, Chair of the SAB's Environmental Engineering Committee, added that EPA
in recent years has taken steps to address the human factors associated with new technologies. EPA's
Office of Research and Development has identified a new mission for its engineering laboratory in
Cincinnati and has renamed it the "National Risk Management Research Laboratory." The SAB
generally and the EEC in particular have considered several topics in recent years that have addressed
social science aspects of new technologies: (1) risk reduction options selection, which addressed
non-technological criteria for ranking options; (2) waste reuse strategy; and (3) pollution prevention.
He assured Subcommittee members that the EEC will apply their recommendations to the Agency in its
upcoming documents.
Members then briefly introduced themselves and described their research; no members
identified any activity that would conflict with their providing advice on the topic of the Workshop. The
substantive business of the Workshop then commenced, generally following the sequence and timing as
outlined in the Agenda.
Introduction to EPA Issues.
1. Watershed Approach. Ms. Louise Wise (EPA, Office of Water), provided an introduction
to the Watershed Approach and discussed issues of diffusion and adoption. She defined the
Watershed Approach as a continual multi-part process that involves: (1) defining a place bounded by
hydrologic drainage features; (2) focusing on the environmental conditions of that place; (3) planning
activities to preserve or improve conditions; (4) taking action; and (5) evaluating results. She described
the diffusion of the approach as successful overall, yet identified several issues. These issues include:
(1) some states apply watershed approach narrowly and focus on only one priority issue, e.g., NPDES
permits; (2) federal agencies have had uneven success in different parts of the country in diffusing
coordinated delivery of federal services at the watershed level; (3) EPA's own efforts to diffuse the
watershed approach consistently have been disrupted by "regulatory tsunami's" [e.g., regulatory efforts
to address animal feeding operations, combined sewer overflows] that have not been structured strictly
to address watershed-level issues, and have drawn resources and attention from the watershed
approach; (4) bureaucratic organizations at the state and federal level are "stovepiped," not integrated
to address watershed issues; (5) jurisdictions at the city and county level are not organized along
hydrSological lines and, as a result, existing jurisdictions make collaboration to address watershed
issues difficult; and (6) lack of adequate funding to diffuse the watershed approach.
A-2
-------
Ms. Wise described the original strategy for promoting the watershed approach within and
outside EPA as a six-prong strategy: (1) try it; (2) advertise it; (3) finance it; (4) develop tools for it; (5)
reorient programs to complement it; and (6) measure it (with "it" being the Watershed Approach).
Workgroups (called the "Six Pack" were organized to address each prong of the strategy. In
determining how to concentrate effort, the Office took a "domino approach" to diffusing the Watershed
Approach. The plan was to find multiple ways to influence multiple targets (e.g., states, local
governments, watershed groups, other federal agencies, EPA) and to "find where to push to make
changes happen. "The office began with a focus on states because they implement most of EPA's
programs. But as the approach caught on, her office began to target a broader audience. Ultimately,
they relied on the internet, brochures, publications, training, technical assistance, and financial incentives
to promote the approach.
She asked the Subcommittee for advice on how her office's strategies compare to other diffusion
models and how EPA can better promote the use of social sciences in watershed approaches at all
levels.
2. Multi-Media Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBT) Initiative/Pollution Prevention Mr.
Thomas Murray (EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic check name) provided a briefing that
oriented Subcommittee members to the pollution prevention program and the PBT initiative. Mr.
Murray prefaced the briefing with an acknowledgment of the factors in Everett Rogers diffusion model
that would predict diffusion as difficult for pollution prevention efforts: (1) bureaucratic context; (2)
preventive innovations generally identified with slower diffusion rates; (3) diffusion in complex
organizations generally slower; and (4) diffusion of innovations frustrated by "stovepiped," rather than
integrated organizations.
Mr. Murray described two examples for the Subcommittee to consider. The first involved the
diffusion of environmentally preferable cleaners. He described the Executive Order that requires
federal agencies to procure environmentally friendly cleaners and EPA's work with the General
Services Administration (GSA) to provide information in GSA catalogues about the quality, price, and
environmental attributes of cleaners. After several years, EPA is finding that the GSA is not finding
environmentally friendly cleaners economical to offer; federal agencies are not purchasing them. In
addition, only one municipality, Santa Monica, has successfully adopted use of environmentally friendly
cleaners.
The second example illustrated issues concerning the diffusion of pollution prevention efforts
within the context of the PBT initiative. Mr. Murray described the Agency's efforts to work with
hospitals to encourage the adoption of alternatives to mercury thermometers. Although many hospitals
are adopting reliable substitutes, the Agency still encounters resistance from medical doctors who have
not been trained in the use of alternate devices, distrust them, and also distrust the risks EPA links to
the production, use, and disposal of mercury thermometers.
Mr. Murray concluded by asking the Subcommittee members for advice. He suggested that
although pollution prevention was accepted as an EPA "guiding principle," and although people
A-3
-------
generally agree on the merits of pollution prevention in the abstract, the Agency generally faces an uphill
battle regarding diffusion and adoption of pollution prevention approaches both within EPA and
outside. He asked the Subcommittee if the Agency was doing enough to diffuse the approach; whether
the stovepiped structure of the Agency was a rate-limiting step; and how to measure the diffusion of the
pollution prevention approach.
3. Use of Social Science Tools. Cultural Profiling. Ms. Theresa Trainor (EPA, Office of
Water), gave a presentation which asked for advice regarding the plan for diffusing a new social science
tool, "Community Cultural Profiling (CCP)." She began her presentation by describing the current state
of the social sciences at EPA and the reason for developing the CCP. Ms. Trainor stated that there
were 3 significant efforts in the 1990's to identify key social science needs, including a draft Social
Science Research Agenda reviewed by the SAB in 1992. She stated that EPA has developed five
extramural research programs with some elements of social science, including a grant program on
Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental Policies. She commented that non-economic social
scientists have found it difficult to get funding within these grants programs. She mentioned that EPA's
Office of Research and Development is considering developing a research plan for the non-economic
social sciences.
Ms. Trainor identified perceived barriers to the use of non-economic social sciences by the
Agency. They include: (1) lack of funding; (2) the perception that social sciences do not have
immediate applicable results; (3) lack of incentives for investing in or applying social science; and (4) no
mandates calling for social science research or use of the social sciences.
Despite these barriers, in 1995 EPA Regional Staff participated in a survey conducted by
EPA's Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, and identified the need for a tool to help them work
with communities. They specified the need for better ways to identify social networks and partnerships,
to identify stakeholders, and to aid in the communication of ecological issues. The CCP was designed
as a response to this need. The draft CCP is in its final stages of revision. It has been field tested and
peer reviewed. The name of the document will likely change to "Community Cultural Assessment
Guide."
To date, efforts to diffuse the guide have included pilot testing of the Guide in several locations,
training of EPA Staff and Staff of The Nature Conservancy, and an Internet notice of availability of the
draft.
Ms. Trainor concluded with her specific questions for the Subcommittee: (1) how best to
institutionalize the guide, given perceived barriers described; (2) how to work within EPA's Office of
Water to reach diffusion targets; (3) how to work effectively with primary innovators without "burnout";
and (4) how to work effectively to advance use of social sciences within EPA despite multiple
reorganizations.
A-4
-------
Short overviews of Subcommittee Members' research and how they may relate to EPA
Issues.
Dr. Kasperson opened the discussion with several observations about the morning
presentations. He noted that the three topics raise similar questions: (1) is there a clear diffusion
strategy; (2) are the presenters making correct assumptions about barriers to success; and (3) what are
the desired measures of success for each and should those measures be associated with changes in
process or outcomes. He noted that all three cases involve a "slow process dealing with hard
problems."
Dr. Frances Berry was the first Subcommittee member to discuss how her research interests
related to the EPA issues. She drew on her experience with comparing state policy innovations to
suggest it might be helpful for EPA, especially with the CCP, to draw a distinction between internal
determinants of diffusion and a regional diffusion model. She suggested that social and political factors,
as well as the intrinsic characteristics of an innovation, need to be considered. She noted that her
research on implementing policy and management reforms suggest five findings: (1) Agency managers
need to communicate internally and externally about the innovation and link the reform to the Agency's
mission; (2) the best agencies are "ruthless and persistent" about performance management-measures
of performance are really important and Agency managers need to develop capacity and processes to
allow people to meet those measures; (3) interest groups need to support the mission and the
innovation; (4) Agency managers need political capital and good relations with overseers; and (5) EPA
needs to eliminate rigid rules and procedures using teams, process improvements and other means to
decentralize and be more participatory.
Dr. Mary Durfee next suggested that the research of Ron Burke at the University of Chicago
involving network theory might be useful to the Agency. His research looks at social cohesion and
contagion of ideas and the diffusion of innovations among social equivalents. The general rule is that the
more similar the "ego" and "alter" (i.e., the innovator and the target of innovation) are to each other and
to members of their networks, the more likely innovations are to occur. The actual communication
efforts involved are less important than the relationships between the innovators and the targets of
adoption.
She also suggested that research shows that people or organizations associated with multiple
networks [e.g., Publically Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) have networks with other regulated
A-5
-------
entities, with other regulators, with engineers, with their clients]9 can manipulate those networks for
social capital, such as diffusing an innovation - and could be strategic targets for EPA.
Dr. Durfee also suggested that the "stick" as well as the carrot was important to consider in
developing a diffusion strategy. She suggested that a person or organization's motivation to avoid
unpleasant outcomes can be a powerful incentive to innovate. She suggested that the pollution
prevention program capitalize on its targets' desire to avoid regulatory or enforcement actions.
Dr. Karlene Roberts stated that her research focused on risk mitigation in situations where the
probability of risks is low and their consequences are high. She is interested in the "culture of
confusion" — factors that prevent dissemination and adoption of new ideas. She also studies how
failures in innovation contribute to risk.
Dr. James Dealing commented that his knowledge of diffusion research suggests that there
were four mistakes commonly made in trying to disseminate and diffuse a new idea: (1) assuming that
involving a minority of people will affect a majority, instead of considering whether the right people are
involved at the right time in the diffusion process (case in point: choosing appropriate people to be
involved in a pilot so that others are not "put off'); (2) failing to involve people whom others see as
influential at a critical, early stage; (3) confusion of mistaken identity - we often confuse people of
authority with people of influence; studies of influential people show that they are randomly distributed
across different social strata and there is no correlation between influence and power; and (4) failing to
note that there are good times and bad times to publicize a demonstration of an innovation; if an
innovation is not yet ready to be publicized, people will perceive it as incomplete and too complex, and
this perception will lead to negative reactions.
Dr. Kenneth Geiser described his experience in Massachusetts where he runs a program
encouraging approximately 500 firms to reduce use of toxic chemicals. Among those firms, he found
"lots of innovations" in the introduction of new processes that led to a reduction in toxic materials, but a
fairly low rate of diffusion. This low rate of diffusion resulted from: (1) a "lack of observability"
because firms could not observe practices in each other workplaces; and (2) firms' reluctance to be
seen as early adopters.
99 Background note for reader: POTWs are regulated by both federal and state (and sometimes local) wastewater
quality discharge limits. Rarely, if ever, can the POTW justify going beyond those limits (which normally translates
into higher sewage treatment costs to users - both industrial and residential). However, there are at least two
mechanisms that exists within the current regulatory framework by which POTWs can influence the adoption of
innovations in pollution prevention. If the POTW is a Type I facility (meaning it is required to have an established
industrial pretreatment program), it can promote the use of pollution prevention during its routine inspections of
industrial and commercial sewer users. During these inspections, the POTW pretreatment personnel can convey the
benefits of pollution prevention to the industrial sewer users including its favorable impact on reducing current and
future wastewater discharge fees. Secondly, for those industrial sewer users that have been found to be in violation
with their local wastewater discharge permit, the POTW can require the affected facility to adopt pollution
prevention measures as part of the enforcement action.
A-6
-------
His Institute established a demonstration program to allow firms to try a new technology if they
would let others see the innovation in action. The program has funded twenty projects and he
concludes that such a mechanism is a powerful vehicle to allow competitors to consider adoption. The
experience also showed a wide variation in rates of diffusion. Some sectors showed a lot of interest
and innovation; other showed few changes. His conclusion is that certain technologies and situations
are ripe for innovation; others are not.
Dr. Everett Rogers suggested that EPA has an advantage in the pool of favorable public good
will regarding environmental protection. He proposed that the Agency focus that good will toward
advancing innovation when crises arise. He suggested that the Centers for Disease Control has tried to
use knowledge of health crises in such a strategic way to advance innovations. One of the units designs
a strategy before a crisis happens to take advantage of that opportunity to promote changes that would
have prevented the crisis. The unit also capitalizes on the anniversary of the crisis for the same purpose.
Dr. Sim Sitkin described his research as focusing on how organizations can build systematic
processes not only for anticipating failures, but also for designing systems so organizations can cope
with them and learn from them. His research has distinguished two different types of systems relating to
innovations that need to be studied and planned for: (1) Total Quality Management (TQM) systems that
apply to the routine and familiar (first order learning), but often are applied to uncertain, nonroutine
circumstances where they are inappropriate, and (2) Total Quality Learning, an exploratory or
discovery process of second order learning-learning how to do new things-that organizations can
systematize (Cohen and Levinthal 1990; Dewar and Dutton 1989; Duncan 1976; Nord and Tucker
1987).
He has studied organizations that seem to be "doing both kinds of innovations well" and that are
approaching them in a systematic way (e.g., through incentives, goal setting, training) (March, 1991;
Sitkin et al, 1992; Sutcliffe et al, 2000; Wildavksy, 1988). For those organizations, adaptation and
updating is the norm, whether the organization is addressing familiar or unfamiliar problems. In each
case, individuals in the organization continuously identify problems and the best response.
He suggested that EPA in diffusing innovations give more attention to the characteristics of the
organizations it is trying to affect and ask "how fertile is the ground for the innovation?" He suggested
identifying the attributes of organizations that can recognize an innovation when presented and then act
on them. In working with states and community organizations, it would be helpful to pick on an
"appropriate intermediate target" that can recognize an innovation, act on it, and then influence others.
He also suggested that organizational research suggested that propensity for innovation and risk
was not an inherent trait. Instead, the propensity for taking risks was cumulative; it builds up over time
as organizations develop experience dealing with risks and innovation.
Dr. Laura Steinberg described her research project conducted in collaboration with Dr.
Victoria Basolo at the University of New Orleans. It was designed to identify how innovations in
A-7
-------
ultra-violet (UV) disinfection of wastewater were diffused and adopted among publicly owned
treatment plants (POTWs). She found that adopters focused primarily on current, not future, regulatory
considerations, were often not influenced significantly by construction funding incentives, frequently had
a champion for UV in the organization, and were attracted by the relative technical advantage of UV
over alternative technologies.
The Subcommittee members ended their morning session at 12:00 a.m. and adjourned for lunch
and a short introduction to Federal Advisory Committee Act Requirements and to the SAB
organization and procedures until 1:00 p.m..
Panel Response to EPA Issues.
1. Watershed Approach. The Chair invited Ms. Louise Wise to begin the session by briefly
summarizing her major questions for the committee and providing more information about the Office of
Water's "domino approach." Ms. Wise responded that there was general awareness and acceptance
of the Watershed Approach, but implementation was like "going on a diet." In practice, it was difficult
to do. The "Domino Approach" was a concept that the Office of Water used to simplify thinking about
how to introduce the Watershed Approach, which requires a new way of thinking about delivering
services to individual places, i.e., overcoming fragmentation of programs by thinking "what does an
individual place need." Since there are so many watersheds and since many EPA programs involve
states, the Office of Water selected the states as the initial "domino" to influence.
Dr. Geiser asked whether the Agency had considered developing a specific diffusion plan
similar to the plan used to introduce pollution prevention technologies in Massachusetts. Ms. Wise
responded that the Agency had a five-pronged plan that involved advertising, developing tools,
providing financial incentives, reorienting EPA programs, and measurement/evaluation. She mentioned
that the states generally resisted efforts to measure and evaluate their progress in applying the
watershed approach. Dr. Kasperson suggested, in response, that a real diffusion plan would differ from
a general communication plan or implementation strategy. It would identify specifics to be
accomplished, stages and targets to reach (e.g., specific states, specific places and other "influentials"
tagged as early adopters), barriers per stage, and an estimate of the resources and time involved. It
would need peer review and discussion, and could be used, evaluated, and readapted as a living,
dynamic plan. He suggested that planning the social process of diffusion could be as important to a
project as planning the technical aspects of a project.
The conversation then turned to incentives for adopting or not adopting the Watershed
Approach. Ms. Wise suggested that for some, the motivation came from the fear of future requirements
or the desire to have a say in how they apply, avoiding future requirements, such as storm water
regulations or requirements on animal feeding operations. EPA also provides some small amount of
financial incentives. She suggested that the primary motivation comes from people's caring about clean
water in their neighborhood.
A-8
-------
Dr. Sim Sitkin then asked whether there would be a benefit in analyzing the states and the over
4000 watershed groups to determine factors relating to effective diffusion. He suggested that analysis
may show that diffusion strategies could be different for different groups. Ms. Wise suggested that such
a data gathering and analysis process could occur as part of the 11 regional roundtables occurring as
part of the Clean Water Action Plan and the big national watershed forum envisioned for 2001. There
will be a Watershed Report associated with the national forum; it might outline a diffusion plan.
Dr. Frances Berry returned to the question of incentives and measurement. She stated that her
research shows that state and local governments are searching for models. She believes that personnel
in state and local governments value and learn from high-profile award programs (e.g., JFK school
innovation awards, ICMA awards). She suggests that EPA encourage watershed groups to apply for
those awards because they will help provide the credibility needed and the detail about implementation
experience that people at the local level are seeking.
Dr. Berry also suggested that effective diffusion of the watershed approach depended on giving
local governments an understanding of how it relates to performance-based budgeting. She suggested
that almost every state has adopted performance-based budgeting and that staff in state legislatures and
state agencies are seeking outcome and output models. She proposed that if models are not readily
available, EPA would benefit from investing in them. In the interim, EPA could suggest some generally
accepted measures, and communicate them in an advisory, not mandatory way. She suggested that
EPA write up and disseminate cases where performance-based measurement has been done. Dr. Dale
Manty (EPA, Office of Research and Development) suggested that the brownfield program might offer
cases where such performance measurement has been done. Dr. Mary Durfee added that, based on
her experience with Lake Superior, it would be appropriate for the performance measurements for
watersheds to address quality of life issues, not just water quality.
Dr. Sim Sitkin then suggested that analysis of the differences among watershed groups and
among states may indicate different goals and different measures for different groups. He also
suggested that different documents may also aid learning in organizations in different ways at different
stages of the process. Some documents can capture learning that already occurred and transfer that
information to others. Other documents are "living documents" that are scaffolding for enhancing
capabilities and learning but the document itself is a "throwaway" and should not be confused with a
reference document.
Dr. Laura Steinberg asked whether EPA might use crises strategically to advance innovations
related to the Watershed Approach. She suggested that Agency might develop a plan to promote key
innovations when major disruptions [perhaps even the introduction of "regulatory tsunamis" like the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) rule] threaten to have major impacts and capture public attention.
Dr. Roger Kasperson concluded the session on the Watershed Approach by suggesting that the
approach actually involved three or more different sets of innovations (e.g., community-based
assessment, inter-jurisdictional cooperation, adaptive management), each in themselves difficult to
A-9
-------
achieve. He suggested that it may be helpful to be clear that there are multiple innovations and that
each one may have a different diffusion process. He proposed that it may be useful to "unravel" some
of them, develop a separate diffusion plan for particular innovations as appropriate, identify different
targets for different aspects of diffusion as appropriate, and measure the efforts separately.
2. Multi-Media Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins (PBT) Initiative/Pollution Prevention. Mr.
Thomas Murray began the session by summarizing the major diffusion issues he saw: (1) how to
develop goals and measures in sectors where EPA does not have significant expertise in the
technologies being used or the organizational structure; (2) how effective are case studies and pilots--
some people use them, others don't; (3) how best to get information out as part of a diffusion strategies;
(4) how to work through the EPA regions and states; (5) how to achieve an appropriate balance of
incentives and "scares" (e.g., use of the Toxic Release Inventory); and (6) how to work in a fluid
process - often EPA deals with an issue and a need for an innovation and doesn't initially have an
innovation to diffuse (i.e., EPA's work with Dow's Midland Plant). He asked for advice on how to fight
through some of these hurdles to develop and implement a diffusion strategy.
The discussion began with some clarifications and suggestions. Dr. Michael McFarland
suggested that he had seen progress in the Department of the Army in its use of pollution prevention
alternatives to CFCs. Dr. Karlene Roberts suggested that the Agency supplement its own limited
resources in the behavioral and social sciences needed to understand business sectors by accessing the
National Research Council Committee on Natural and Behavioral Sciences.
Dr. Kenneth Geiser advised that EPA develop an explicit diffusion plan that would model the
setting, the social network and the context it wanted to influence. He suggested that such a plan could
identify the points of intervention, give EPA some leverage, and allow it to be more effective in a
reasonable time at a reasonable cost. He indicated that both OPPT and OW could develop such plans
more aggressively.
He gave an example of how such a plan might work. In the replacement of PVC pipe in a
blood bank, his research looked at how decisions about blood bags were made. He found that major
decisions about purchasing were not made by individual firms. They were made by large
conglomerates that negotiated and set prices. This research into organizations and complex purchasing
behaviors changed the way his Institute thought of consumers. Decisions were being made in
unsuspected ways. He suggested if such behaviors were not studied and modeled, the true process
could not be known, understood, and planned for. He concluded that social sciences had a role to
play.
Dr. Frances Berry followed this comment by suggesting that such practice was consistent with
quality management. In the case of environmentally preferable cleaners, for example, it is key to
interview purchasing officers to understand how they perceive quality and reality, and identify what they
are most concerned about. To diffuse an innovation effectively, an Agency needs to highlight relative
advantages in the terms valued by the target audience and to communicate benefits in empirical terms.
A- 10
-------
She suggested that recent work in political science suggests that change happens when three different
streams flow together: (1) problem definition stream; (2) solution identification stream; and (3) political
stream (e.g., elections and new administrations). Policy change occurs when a "window of
opportunity" opens and all three streams converge. She suggested that EPA could highlight the
problem stream more effectively. Dr. Sim Sitkin added that identifying the "resource stream" would
complete the model and enhance the effectiveness of the diffusion plan.
Dr. Mary Durfee addressed the complexity of EPA's approach to pollution prevention; the
Agency is attempting to diffuse innovations at different scales. It is doing this work without significant
research into the social process of adoption. By contrast, the Department of Defense invested half a
million dollars in the network analysis of the modeling of people influence in the adoption of a new
computer system. This research resulted in new information that the Department of Defense is using to
diffuse this one innovation.
Even given EPA's lack of resources for similarly intense, detailed research, Dr. Durfee
suggested that EPA could be more strategic in its thinking about diffusion. EPA might consider
identifying "structural holes," organizations like POTWs that exist at an intermediate scale. The key is to
identify individuals or organizations who are located in enough networks so they can "jump back and
forth," being influential among different groups.
She suggested that the Agency think strategically about organizations of different sizes. In her
view, an organization with about 150 people might be an ideal diffusion target. It would be large
enough to have the requisite expertise and resources to undertake innovations and yet small enough so
that managers have real decision-making authority and that information would be integrated, not
stove-piped. If the Agency were able to pick targets to influence of roughly that size, and if those
targets were located strategically in multiple networks, and if the innovations were perceived as
successes by the targets, then factors for diffusion would be most favorable.
Two EPA Staff people, Mr. Larry Weinstock (EPA, Office of Air and Radiation) and Mr.
George Wyeth (EPA, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovations) suggested that EPA programs that
focused explicitly on marketing (Green Lights Program and the Energy Star Program) had success in
propagating particular innovations. Mr. Weinstock commented that the pollution prevention program
both involved itself in identifying innovations and propagating them.
Dr. Sim Sitkin agreed with Dr. Durfee that the role of intermediary organizations was crucial
and that it is important to understand who is making decisions relating to innovation and their
motivation. Dr. Sitkin suggested that this insight may be useful to watershed efforts also. Working with
intermediate target units may help to understand when it is appropriate to "smokestack," and when it
appropriate to integrate with the watershed approach.
Dr. James Dealing concluded the discussion of pollution prevention with some summary
remarks. He cautioned the Agency against confusing a marketing approach with a diffusion approach.
He argued that "taking an ad out" is not the same as diffusion. A marketing approach characterizes
A-ll
-------
potential "choosers" of an innovation as autonomous. The diffusion approach assumes a relationship
among potential adapters-views them as inter-related somehow, perhaps as described in Everett
Roger's model in Diffusion of Innovations—and seeks to use this knowledge of the social system in a
conscious way.
The key is to identify who has decision-making ability, then to identify who is in communication
with that person, and the person's social position within the networks. The strategy is to appeal to
change agents themselves and influence them to influence others. He emphasized that if EPA identified
the right people, it would be important to influence them in the right way. They could defeat innovation
just as fast as they could propel the innovation.
3. Use of Social Science Tools. Cultural Profiling. Ms. Theresa Trainor began the discussion
with a question about where the field was most fertile for introducing the Profiling Guide. She
suggested that it might be most strategic to implement it externally, because most of the potential users
in EPA would be non-social scientists, who would be learning something very new. She asked for
advice identifying innovators and early adopters. She asked for advice on overcoming the barriers
identified earlier and how to prioritize actions. She also stated that EPA intends to change the name of
the tool from "Community Cultural Profiling Guide" to something like "Community Cultural Assessment
Guide." Subcommittee members agreed that such a change was important.
Dr. Kasperson began the discussion with requests for clarification about the diffusion issue and
potential users. Ms. Trainor responded that there was a need to diffuse both an awareness of the need
for the guide and the specific tool itself and that potential users were likely to be unfamiliar and
potentially uncomfortable with the Guide because of a lack of social science training. Ms. Trainor also
suggested that the Agency had also asked two Native Americans to review the Guide and received
feedback that other tools might be more useful to understanding tribal members' cultural attitudes
toward ecological resources.
Dr. Dominico Grasso inquired whether it would be feasible to break the Guide into component
parts and introduce it in a phased way that might be more attractive to users. Dr. Rogers suggested
that such an approach would be consistent with the diffusion framework in his book, since innovations
generally have a more rapid rate of adoption if they are compatible with ideas they are replacing. Small
increments are likely to be more successful. Both Subcommittee members, however, acknowledged
pitfalls. Sometimes efforts that succeed at small scale "fail miserably" when they are scaled up. Dr.
Rogers added that innovations perceived as having high uncertainty are also perceived as more
complex (and less desirable). Many highly uncertain innovations, however have high payoffs. This
dilemma is one of the unique aspects of preventive innovations, such as the ones being discussed by the
EPA.
Dr. Frances Berry suggested that it would be helpful to link introduction of the guide to values
and utilities held by the target groups outside the Agency. She suggested it would be a useful tool for
conflict resolution, community-based, natural resource planning, and strategic planning for groups like
A-12
-------
"1000 Friends." If the Agency could link the tool to real practical issues faced by the target audience,
diffusion would be enhanced.
Dr. Sim Sitkin suggested that diffusion externally seemed less difficult than diffusion internally
within EPA, because externally EPA has developed a seemingly effective strategy of working through
partners. Effective diffusion within EPA might involve consulting the literature on "communities of
practice" within organizations. He suggested there was a body of literature on how to identify and work
with cross-cutting groups with similar expertise and needs.
Dr. Karlene Roberts suggested that diffusion externally and internally might be enhanced by a
case study write-up of implementation of a Guide that would appear in a journal read by
environmentalists. Such a tactic might influence non-social scientists. She also commented that
environmental sociologists and psychologists were likely to be very comfortable with the tool as a
well-developed system that could be used in the field.
The conversation then turned to other targets for implementation. Dr. Laura Steinberg
suggested that EPA's environmental engineers, especially those with recent training, would be interested
in the Guide and would welcome the opportunity to be involved in its implementation. She also
suggested that perhaps the tool may be useful to other federal agencies, whose staff might "sell" the
effectiveness of the tool back to EPA staff. Dr. Durfee then mentioned that the Army Corps of
Engineers has consciously invested in conflict resolution and appears to have the characteristics of an
organization that learns; and might be receptive to the Guide. Dr. Roberts also suggested that it might
be useful to the Department of Interior within the National Park Service and to the U.S. Coast Guard.
Dr. Roger Kasperson concluded the session by commenting that the Guide represents an
interesting case of evaluating what success means. Introduction of the Guide involves a new tool and
changes in practice, but the real measure of success may not be how many times the tool is used, but
how helpful it is in problem solving. Effective diffusion may involve identifying opportunities to match
the tool to the right problem, raising consciousness of the need for such a tool, and instituting the tool in
the most effective way.
Public Comment.
Dr. Claude Bennett from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USD A) was the only individual
providing oral comments. He supplemented his written comments provided to the Subcommittee by
describing USDA's efforts to integrate demonstration projects with research efforts so that users would
be involved in the design of innovations intended for them. His program has discovered that farmers
tend to adapt most and learn most from other farmers, in contrast to their reactions to research
conducted at Agricultural Experiment Stations. In FY2000, USDA for the first time funded integrated
projects spanning applied research, extension and evaluation. He suggested that designing innovations
in such a way had great potential for diffusion and how programs evaluate the effectiveness of research.
A-13
-------
Presentation on Diffusion of Environmental Innovations from EPA's Office of Policy.
Economics and Innovations (OPED.
Dr. Jay Benforado, Deputy Associate Administrator of OPEI gave a brief introduction to the
role of his office. His office has the task of helping people at EPA see their job as continual innovation.
He saw innovation at EPA as a priority because the Agency is facing new and different environmental
problems from when the Agency began (e.g., non-point source pollution); has new tools (e.g., Internet);
is working with new partners (e.g., new roles for states and local governments); and there are new
paradigms that are alternatives to pollution control (e.g., pollution prevention, sustainable development,
environmental justice). He suggested that EPA has in the past ten years generated many innovations.
Some have been incremental improvements to existing programs and some been transformational (e.g.,
watershed protection, airshed trading). He wondered if there were on the horizon even more major
changes that he called "step changes," major innovations such as self regulation or regulation of whole
facilities. He referred Subcommittee members to the recent publication, "Innovation at the
Environmental Protection Agency; A Decade of Progress," which documented programmatic changes
(e.g., in Superfund and the brownfield program); new partnerships (e.g., especially in the areas of
energy efficiency, water conservation); and the importance of stakeholder involvement. He introduced
the manager of a new office within OPEI, which focuses on environmental policy innovations.
Ms. Betsy Shaw, Director of the Office of Environmental Policy Innovation, described her
organization as having three divisions with responsibilities for innovative pilots, evaluation, and major
policy and program change. One initial focus will be on scaling-up innovations resulting from Project
XL, such as self-certification. Her organization will be developing criteria for diffusion; such criteria
would include the power of the idea, how it relates to money, and a "gut sense of ripeness." Her
organization will employ a flexible strategy to engage Agency staff. The goal will be to keep good ideas
alive, match them to problems that need to be solved and match them with key staff. OPEI will work
with a cross-Agency Council of senior managers who form the Reinvention Action Council.
Next followed a discussion of how the SAB and the social sciences might assist the OPEI. Dr.
Benforado stated that his organization could benefit from better understanding how to work with public
service organizations and businesses in different sectors. He also saw a need for better understanding
of how to work with the public and other partners in environmental protection. He also wondered
whether there might be advice for the new Office of Environmental Innovation on types of innovations
to focus on and priority steps to take, and how to promote innovations that cut across the activities of
existing EPA programs. Dr. Kasperson thanked Dr. Benforado and Ms. Shaw for their presentations
and offered the possible conclusion that the Agency is currently thinking more about innovation than
diffusion. It may be time to establish greater balance.
Summary of Discussion and Identification of Next Steps.
A- 14
-------
Dr. Kasperson asked the group whether they would find it appropriate and possible to write a
Commentary Letter to the Administrator regarding the diffusion and adoption of innovations. Dr.
Geiser suggested that the group did have a major message to convey: that the Agency's commitment to
innovation needs to be balanced by a commitment to diffusion and that diffusion seems less well
understood at the Agency.
Agency staff responded that such a letter might be very helpful. Dr. Dale Manty requested that
the letter indicate the level of resources that would "make a difference" in helping the Agency
understand diffusion of innovations. Ms. Trainor suggested that it would be most helpful if the letter
informed the Agency of what a "diffusion plan" might look like and how it would differ from a
communications strategy.
The Subcommittee agreed to provide written input on the four general charge questions to Dr.
Nugent by Friday July 7 and that any document to be developed would be written for persons who
were not social scientists. Dr. Kasperson suggested that he and Dr. Nugent develop a proposed
outline, process, and proposed writing assignments for the Commentary Letter and communicate the
information to the Subcommittee members.
At 5:20 p.m., Dr. Kasperson adjourned the meeting.
Submitted by Dr. Angela Nugent, Designated Federal Officer
Approved by Dr. Roger Kasperson, Chair
A-15
------- |