THE USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN BASKETBALL Word count: 30.633

Louise-Marie Platteau Student number : 01207781 Supervisor: Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Kristof De Mey Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van: Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:

Master of Science in Business Engineering Academiejaar/ Academic year: 2016 - 2017

THE USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES IN BASKETBALL Word count: 30.633

Louise-Marie Platteau Student number : 01207781 Supervisor: Prof. dr. Bart Clarysse Co-supervisor: Prof. dr. Kristof De Mey Masterproef voorgedragen tot het bekomen van de graad van: Master’s Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of:

Master of Science in Business Engineering Academiejaar/ Academic year: 2016 - 2017

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT PERMISSION I declare that the content of this Master’s Dissertation may be consulted and/or reproduced, provided that the source is referenced. Name student :……………………………………………………………………………………………… Handtekening/signature

I

NederlandstaligeSamenvatting Achtergrond – Meer en meer doen technologische innovaties hun intrede in de sportsector. De

National Basketball Association (NBA) in Amerika neemt de sturende rol om technologie en sport

dichter bij elkaar te brengen. Echter, weinig effect van deze ontwikkeling kan worden

waargenomen in België.

Doel – Inzicht verschaffen in welke factoren het innovatiegebeuren van een basketbalorganisatie

bepalen door te onderzoeken hoe dit concreet verloopt en welke factoren mogelijks een invloed

kunnen hebben op deze ontwikkeling.

Methode – Een kwalitatief onderzoek, gebaseerd op diepte-interviews met sleutelpersonen in

verschillende basketbal organisaties in België, allemaal operatief in de Belgische eerste divisie.

Verder werd een intensieve coding techniek toegepast om de interview-resultaten te structureren.

Bevindingen – Er werd een conceptueel model ontwikkeld dat een overzicht biedt van alle

relevante, beïnvloedende factoren voor het innovatiegebeuren in een basketbal organisatie,

gegroepeerd in vier categorieën. Ook werd de beslissing omtrent innovatie gemodelleerd in drie

afzonderlijke fases namelijk Propositie, Evaluatie en Beslissing. Verder kwamen er enkele

beïnvloedende factoren aan het licht; druk die de samenleving kan uitoefenen op een basketbal

organisatie om innovatief te zijn en meer actief zich te engageren op sociale media, de prioriteiten

van de organisatie en de leeftijd van het personeel. Momenteel is het budget van de organisatie de

belangrijkste belemmerende factor voor innovatie in basketbal.

II

Abstract Background – Increasingly, technological innovations are making an entrance within the sport

sector. The National Basketball Association (NBA) in America has been the conductor of the train

speeding into the sporting world’s technological future, however little evidence of this

development can be found in Belgian basketball.

Objective – To provide insights into what factors determine the innovativeness of a basketball

organization by investigating how the decision process with regard to technological innovations

develops and what could serve as potential influences in this development.

Method – A qualitative research based on in-depth interviews with key persons in multiple

basketball organizations over Belgium, all of which participate in the first division of Belgian

basketball. An intensive coding approach was performed to structure the data obtained by the

interviews.

Results – A conceptual framework was developed that provides an overview of all relevant

influencing factors of innovation within the organization, grouped in four categories. Additionally,

the innovation decision process of a basketball organization was modelled into three distinct

phases namely Proposition, Evaluation and Decision. Furthermore, some influencing factors in

this process came to light; pressure by society to be innovative and engage more in social media,

the organization’s priorities and age of employees. Currently, the fundamental impediment for

innovation within basketball can be put down to the resource budget.

III

Preface In this preface, I would like to take the opportunity to express some genuine words of appreciation

to a few people in particular. Specifically, to those without whose encouragement and belief, the

completion of my master thesis would not have been feasible.

Firstly, I would like to sincerely express my gratitude to my supervisor, Prof. Bart Clarysse for his

guidance and support throughout the course of my thesis and for offering me the opportunity to

work on a personal field of interest. Further, I would like to thank Mr. Kristof De Mey for aiding

me in my research set-up and providing me with constructive feedback.

My heartfelt thanks also goes to my parents, brother and boyfriend for the unconditional support

during the realization of this master dissertation.

“The essence of all beautiful art, all great art, is gratitude” - Friedrich Nietzsche

Louise-Marie Platteau

IV

TableofContents NEDERLANDSTALIGESAMENVATTING.....................................................................................................I

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................................II

PREFACE..............................................................................................................................................III

TABLEOFCONTENTS...........................................................................................................................IV

LISTOFFIGURES..................................................................................................................................VI

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................1

1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES.....................................................................................................1

2. STRUCTURE RESEARCH...................................................................................................................3

LITERATURESTUDY..............................................................................................................................4

1. INNOVATION....................................................................................................................................4

1.1 Definition................................................................................................................................4

1.2 Attributesofinnovation..........................................................................................................6

1.3 Types of innovation...............................................................................................................15

2. PATTERNS OF INNOVATION...........................................................................................................17

2.1 Technology S-curves.............................................................................................................17

2.2 Technology cycles.................................................................................................................20

3. ADOPTION OF INNOVATIONS.........................................................................................................21

3.1 Process of adoption of innovation in organizations....................................................................21

3.2 The innovation-decision process.................................................................................................24

3.3 Adopter categories.......................................................................................................................25

THEORETICALFRAMEWORK...............................................................................................................29

METHOD............................................................................................................................................30

1. RESEARCH SETTING.......................................................................................................................30

2. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................30

2.1 Unit of analysis.....................................................................................................................30

2.2 Research design....................................................................................................................31

2.3 Identification cases...............................................................................................................31

2.4 Interview protocol.................................................................................................................32

V

2.5 Data analysis........................................................................................................................33

3. FINDINGS.......................................................................................................................................34

3.1 Research question 1..............................................................................................................37

3.2 Research question 2..............................................................................................................44

3.3 Research question 3..............................................................................................................50

DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................................57

1. ANALYSIS PER RESEARCH QUESTION............................................................................................57

1.1 The Innovation-Decision Process.........................................................................................57

1.2 Influencing factors of the Innovation-Decision Process.......................................................60

1.3 Future vision.........................................................................................................................63

2. LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH.......................................................................................64

3. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................65

REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................VII

APPENDIX............................................................................................................................................XI

VI

ListofFiguresFIGURE1:GLOBALSPORTSMARKET-TOTALREVENUEFROM2006TO2015(INBILLIONU.S.DOLLARS)(STATISTA,2016)...................2FIGURE2:THEBASSFORECASTINGMODEL(MAHAJAN,MULLER,&BASS,1993).......................................................................10FIGURE3:S-CURVEOFTECHNOLOGYPERFORMANCE(SCHILLING,2013)....................................................................................18FIGURE4:TECHNOLOGYS-CURVES—INTRODUCTIONOFDISCONTINUOUSTECHNOLOGY(SCHILLING,2013)...................................19FIGURE5:TECHNOLOGYDIFFUSIONS-CURVEWITHADOPTERCATEGORIES(SCHILLING,2013)......................................................20FIGURE6:NORMAL(BELL-SHAPED)CURVEOFMARKETSHARE................................................................................................26FIGURE7:DOMINANTATTRIBUTESOFEACHCATEGORYACCORDINGTOROGER(2003).................................................................28FIGURE8:DESCRIPTIVEDATAOFTHECASESANALYZED............................................................................................................32FIGURE9:SIMPLIFIEDOVERVIEWOFTHEOPENANDAXIALCODINGSTEPS....................................................................................35FIGURE10:THEORETICALFRAMEWORKCONCERNINGINNOVATIONWITHINABELGIANBASKETBALLORGANIZATION............................36FIGURE11:THEINNOVATION-DECISIONPROCESSFORABELGIANBASKETBALLORGANIZATION........................................................44

1

Introduction

1. Background and objectives

The sports industry and management has grown significantly since the beginning of the sixties.

The question then arises what the possible key drivers could be for the sudden boost in this

industry. Firstly, one should highlight the increase in prosperity that occurred in various parts of

the world starting from the 60’s. As a result, people were able to spend a bigger portion of their

income on leisure activities and leisure clothing (Van Bottenburg, 2005). This line of reasoning

has been well elaborated in 1857 by Mr. Ernst Engel – a German statistician –, his theory better

known as the renowned Engel’s Law. A brief definition offered by Investopedia could jog your

memory on this theory: “As a household's income increases, the percentage of income spent on

food decreases while the proportion spent on other goods (such as luxury goods) increases.”

(Investopedia, s.d.). Secondly, one should not forget to mention the explosion in fitness centers

and sport accommodations at the beginning of the 60’s. This created conditions that encouraged

the expansion of sporting activities and also triggered the quest to explore all kinds of new sport

offerings. Thirdly, since the beginning of the 60’s there has been a shift from heavy factory labor

to a more office-work kind of labor. Because of this transition, a large group of employed people

wanted to compensate their inactive desk hours by exercising a more active lifestyle (Van

Bottenburg, 2005). With this in mind, it is easy to understand the augmented usage of sport articles,

accommodation and everything encompassing it.

The reasons listed above constitute the driving force behind the boost of the sports industry in the

sixties and were particularly important in the institutionalization of sport in our modern society.

But how come the sports industry continues to grow even though these driving forces are product

of another age? Today’s global sports industry has grown to a $145.34 billion revenue in 2015,

coming from approximately $107.52 billion in 2006 (Statista, 2016). The revenue encompasses

sporting goods, infrastructure construction, live sports events and licensed product (Figure 1).

2

Figure1:Globalsportsmarket-totalrevenuefrom2006to2015(inbillionU.S.dollars)(Statista,2016)

All of this can be explained by the fact that the sports experience has shifted from just the sports

practitioner to also the sports bystander, thereby creating a much broader target audience with

major business opportunities (Van Bottenburg, 2005). In addition, due to fresh sport innovations

that frequently enter the market, people remain attracted to exercise and are triggered repeatedly.

These tendencies were only possible through the presence of ‘technology’ in the sports industry.

While the adoption of innovations has been studied in a wide literature (Daft, 1978; Wolfe R. A.,

1994; Utterback, 1974; Rogers, The Diffusion of Innovations, 2003), its study in the sport sector

remains limited (Ringuet-Riot, Hahn, & James, 2013).

Given that there are over 700 sports played around the world, I will narrow my field of research

by focusing solely on basketball. The first reason for this is practical; I have in-depth experience

in this sport – being a basketball player myself – resulting in a vast interest and certain familiarity

with basketball. Secondly, little research has been done to examine innovation in basketball

organizations, compared to a well elaborated study for business organization’s innovation (Newell

& Swan, 1995).

Since my research will be aimed at investigating the use of new technologies in the basketball

industry, I will narrow my time frame to the past two years. This is because technology changes

3

at such a high rate so that one is obligated to observe closely and react quickly. Shortening the

time span will enable me to deliver a high quality research that is comprehensive and captures only

the relevant movements in this area. The overall research question is then what the determinants

are of the adoption of new technologies in the basketball sector?

The goal of this research is to give an answer to the following questions:

Research question 1 How do people working for top teams in Belgium describe the decision

making related to the implementation of innovative technologies in basketball?

Research question 2 What factors influence the innovation decision process?

Research question 3 What is the future vision of Belgian basketball teams regarding the use of

innovative technologies?

2. Structure Research

This research begins with a thorough literature study that serves as a theoretical base for the rest

of the paper. The theory of Everett Rogers – Diffusion of Innovations – served as a frame of

reference throughout the literature study. The first part provides a comprehensive definition of the

concept innovation and its related concepts, whereas the second part stipulates a breakdown of

different patterns of innovation. The literature section concludes with a clarification on how the

adoption of innovations develops in organizations.

Next, the theoretical framework in which this research is situated, receives attention. In particular

with focus on the development of sports organizations’ characteristics with regard to innovations.

The succeeding part elaborates on how the explorative research was conducted, more specifically

by means of in-depth personal interviews with key persons of different top-level Belgian

basketball teams. The research setting, applied methodology and resulting findings respectively

are profoundly discussed.

The paper ends with an in-depth discussion of the findings and sets these against existing literature.

4

Literature study

1. Innovation

1.1 Definition

Multiple definitions of innovation have been elaborated over time in literature, giving a well-

explained meaning to the term ‘innovation’. According to Van de Ven (1986), innovation can be

seen as "the development and implementation of new ideas by people who over time engage in

transactions with others in an institutional context". It can be noted that the term ‘new’ should be

interpreted as ‘new to the particular organization’, meaning that even though the idea might already

exist elsewhere, it can still be seen as an innovation for that particular organization (Zaltman,

Duncan, & Holbek, 1973). To clarify this nuance in meaning of the term ‘new’, the following

example can be given: the production and displaying of 3D movies in movie theatres is already a

well-known fact in our society. However, watching 3D movies on home television systems can

yet be seen as an innovation since it can be viewed as an expansion of a product into a different

market (Yocco, 2015b).

Similar definitions of innovation formulated by others can be swiftly found in literature, for

instance Rogers (2003) stated innovation as “an idea, practice, or object perceived as new by an

individual or other unit of adoption”. Another definition “any idea, practice, or material artifact

perceived as new by the relevant unit of adoption” (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973, p. 10) uses

a slightly different formulation but covers the same fundamentals. One can conclude that there is

a general consensus regarding the definition of the term innovation.

According to Rogers (2003), the adoption of innovation can be typified by the following five

attributes, namely (1) relative advantage, (2) compatibility, (3) complexity, (4) trialability, and (5)

observability. Members of a social system can then shape an impression of that specific innovation

based on these five characteristics (explained later), thereby indirectly determining its rate of

adoption. Rogers (2003) defines rate of adoption as “the relative speed with which an innovation

is adopted by members of a social system”. Different types of measures can be used to quantify an

innovation’s rate of adoption, one possible example could be to count the number of individuals

who adopted the innovation for a predefined period of time (Sahin, 2006). When looking at

adoption purely from an economic perspective, costs are primarily outweighed against benefits;

5

the higher the costs and the lower the perceived profit from an innovation, the slower adoption

will take place (Mansfield, 1968).

Additionally, an innovation encompasses three intrinsic elements namely form, function and

meaning. Form refers to an innovation’s instantly observable physical appearance and material.

When considering the contribution an innovation provides to the lifestyle of an individual or social

system, one touches on the function of that innovation. Meaning deals with the regularly

subconscious and subjective impression of an innovation by members belonging to a social system.

It is more challenging for a change agent1 to anticipate the form and function elements of an

innovation for their customers than the meaning (Rogers, 2003).

At some point in time, the rate of adoption of an innovation becomes self-sustaining. The

attainment of this point is in synchronization with reaching the critical mass, meaning that the

number of individuals at which enough people have adopted the innovation is realized. For some

specific innovations, more particularly the ones where interaction between individuals is required

in order to increase the utility for all adopters, this is a crucial turning point (Rogers, 2003). Each

additional adopter to a specific innovation affects the value perceived by earlier adopters and future

adopters. In case of non-interactive innovations, each new adopter provokes an increase in utility

for future adopters, this is called a sequential interdependence effect on later adopter. When

considering interactive innovations, every additional adopter creates not only increased utility for

all future adopters, but also for the already existing adopters, an effect that can be labeled as

reciprocal interdependence.

For most individuals the evaluation of innovations happens through the subjective judgment of

near peers who already adopted the innovation, not on the evidence of research by specialists. Near

peers thus often serve as a role model and individuals of a social system will likely imitate their

innovation behavior (Rogers, 2003). An innovation has a higher likelihood of being adopted by a

certain individual if it has already been adopted by more individuals in his or her personal network.

The number of other actors who must join an innovative activity before a given individual will

engage in that activity is defined as a threshold. An innovator is characterized by demanding few

1 The term ‘change agent’ will be given proper attention in section 1.2.2 Additional attributes of innovation.

6

or no near-peer network influences in order to adopt an innovation. An innovator thus has a low

threshold of resistance towards adoption. The opposite is true for a late majority, where a much

higher threshold of resistance must be overcome by interpersonal network influences in favor of

overthrowing resistance towards adoption. Whereas the critical mass is relevant on the system

level, a threshold acts to some extend in a parallel way at the individual’s level (Rogers, 2003).

1.2 Attributes of innovation

1.2.1 Roger’s attributes of innovation

As already mentioned, the individuals’ perceptions of the five attributes predicts an innovation’s

rate of adoption. As reported by Rogers, 49-87% of the variance in the rate of adoption can be

explained by these five perceived attributes, with relative advantage being the strongest predictor

of the five (Sahin, 2006).

In order to provide a comprehensive and coherent definition of innovation, I will casually discuss

the five attributes to deliver a clear understanding of the attributes’ significations.

Relative advantage

Relative advantage can be defined as “the degree to which an innovation is recognized as being

better than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 2003). This definition can be enriched by stating that

the idea it overrides can either illustrate a prior generation of that product, or a competing

alternative. Relative advantage thus measures how improved an innovation is over its previous

generation of product or a competing option (Yocco, 2015a). Somehow members of a social

system require to be impressed by the additional improvements the innovation can offer them, by

that bettering their current situation and achieving a higher satisfaction level. Yocco (2015a)

provided a guiding enumeration of possible areas in which improvements can be made:

- superior service

- combination of multiple functions into one tool

- decreased need for equipment and supplies

- empowerment of users

- improved interface

- increased customizability – longevity – productivity

- reduced user effort – environmental impact

7

- saving of money, time, space or storage

Experts may, in certain scenarios, deem to reject a particular innovation. When a social system

chooses not to act upon this advice, one can label this as over-adoption.

The relative advantage of an innovation, as perceived by individuals of the social system, is

positively related to its rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003). Keeping this in mind, one can identify two

different types of innovations, depending on at what point in time action is required. The first

group is labelled as preventive innovations, meaning that action to adopt a new idea at one point

in time is required with regard to lower the probability of unwanted consequences in the future.

The benefits of adopting this type are often postponed in time and of a relatively intangible nature.

It can even happen that the unwanted future event does not occur at all in the future, resulting in a

relatively low relative advantage perceived by the individual in comparison with non-preventive

innovations. Since the attribute relative advantage is the most powerful predictor of the rate of

adoption, it is not difficult to deduct that preventive innovations tend to be adopted with less ease

and diffuse more slowly than non-preventive, incremental innovations (Rogers, 2002).

Compatibility

The second attribute, compatibility, refers to the level of consistency an innovation has with the

potential adopters’ existing values, past experiences and needs (Rogers, 2003). Potential adopters

will position an innovation relative to previous ideas and examine its compatibility. Innovations

that are likely to require an enormous change in lifestyle and/or necessitate additional products to

implement, tend to fail with a higher probability (Yocco, 2015a). Instinctively, one can articulate

that the probability of success tends to go up when the innovation is characterized by convenient

adoption features. Replacing the existing product or service then does not hold great effort and a

better level is more easily reached. Change agents can improve an innovation’s compatibility by

considering the indigenous knowledge system individuals use in assessing an innovation. Hence,

naming an innovation and positioning it relative to prior ideas are influential tactics in order to

make an innovation more compatible (Rogers, 2003). The compatibility of an innovation, as

perceived by individuals of the social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption (Rogers,

2003).

8

Complexity

Third in line is the attribute complexity, referring to “the degree to which an innovation is

perceived as relatively difficult to understand and to use” (Rogers, 2003). It is straightforward to

state that the complexity of an innovation, as perceived by individuals of the social system, is

negatively related to its rate of adoption. Potential adopting individuals prefer to not allocate much

time and effort into learning to use an innovation, thus favoring simplicity. The more habitual an

innovation, the higher the probability of adoption as more complex innovations tend to be

incorporated with increased difficulty into the adopters’ lives (Yocco, 2015a).

Trialability

The fourth attribute, trialability, is defined by Rogers (2003) as “the degree to which an innovation

may be experimented with on a limited basis”. This is of critical importance to facilitate adoption

since members of a social system have a preference for innovations they can test before

commitment. In such a way, potential adopters can observe and identify possible advantages an

innovation could offer them. This concept can be made operative by setting up trial sizes in case

of tangible goods, whereas for services or digital goods beta testing and demo trials are initiated

(Yocco, 2015a). As a result, potential adopters can see for themselves what the adoption of the

innovation might add to their lives. One can state that the trialability of an innovation, as perceived

by individuals of the social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption (Rogers, 2003).

Observability

Observability, the final attribute, can be defined as “the degree to which the results of an innovation

are visible to others” (Rogers, 2003). Adopter types2 that follow the early adopter category often

rely on examining how this group utilizes an innovation. However, the importance of observability

extends to all types of adopters, in such a way that each and every adopter type must recognize the

benefits of adopting and using an innovation (Yocco, 2015a). In line with the previous attributes,

Rogers (2003) states that the observability of an innovation, as perceived by individuals of the

social system, is positively related to its rate of adoption. Thus the more visible the results and

benefits of using a particular innovation, the higher the probability of adoption.

It is important to understand that how well an innovation focusses on these five attributes,

determines the innovation’s long-term adoption by a social system (Yocco, 2015a).

2 Not all individuals adopt an innovation immediately and there thus exist adopter categories. An explanation will be provided in section 3.3 Adopter Categories.

9

1.2.2 Additional attributes of innovation

It is possible to increase the predictability of the rate of adoption by considering four additional

variables, listed in the following paragraphs.

Type of innovation decision: optional, collective, authority

Depending on the individual(s) that make the final decision, three types of innovation decisions

can be distinguished. When the decision is made by an individual independent of other members’

decisions, it can be categorized as an optional innovation decision. However, when the decision

was made in consensus among the members of the system, one can speak of a collective innovation

decision. In case relatively few individuals who possess a certain power, status or technical

expertise in a domain are in charge of the decision, authority innovation decision is the correct

classification. Naturally, different combinations of two or more of these categories can generate

additional types of innovation decisions.

Communication channels

Rogers (2003) formulates a communication channel as “the means by which messages get from

one individual to another”. The nature of the communication channels has an important impact on

the diffusion of the innovation at various stages in the innovation-decision process. Two categories

of communication channels can be identified, namely mass media and interpersonal channels.

While mass media operates in TV, radio and/or newspaper mediums, interpersonal channels can

be characterized by a two-way communication between two or more individuals (Sahin, 2006).

The first category is more effective in promptly reaching a large audience, thereby creating

awareness and knowledge of an innovation and spreading information. Mass media channels can

thus purely make changes in weakly held attitudes. To transform strongly held attitudes,

interpersonal channels can be applied.

The second category has greater impact on forming and changing attitudes that have some kind of

resistance toward new ideas. Interpersonal channels possess the ability to provide a two-way

exchange channel, making it possible to receive additional information or clarification concerning

an innovation from another individual. This feature helps to overcome certain social-psychological

10

barriers and thus indirectly influences the decision to either adopt or reject an innovation (Rogers,

2003, p. 194-195).

The importance of the different categories of communication channels thus shifts from mass media

to interpersonal channels relative in time. This principle is properly represented in the ‘Bass

Forecasting Model’ that explicitly links the influence of communication channels on innovation

diffusion (Robinson, 2009). The Bass Model assumes that adopters of an innovation can comprise

two groups, more specifically the ‘innovators’3 and the ‘imitators’. The first group is characterized

by only being influenced by mass-media communication (external influence), whereas the second

group is only influenced by word-of-mouth communication (internal influence) (Mahajan, Muller,

& Bass, 1993). As represented in Figure 2, the Bass model assumes the first group of adopters to

be present at all stages in the diffusion process.

Figure2:TheBassForecastingModel(Mahajan,Muller,&Bass,1993)

An additional means of categorizing a communication channel is by considering the source, this

can either be cosmopolite or localite of nature. Cosmopolite communication channels can be

defined as those from outside the study’s social system, this is also the classification under which

one can categorize mass media channels. In line with previous reasoning, the importance of

cosmopolite channels is relatively higher at the knowledge stage, thus deeper influencing the

earlier adopters. Examples of localite sources can be neighbors, friends, relatives, etc. (Bansal,

3 The definition of the term innovator in this case is not consistent with the definition applyied in this research (Mahajan, Muller, & Srivastava, 1990). For a comprehensive explanation of the meaning of an innovator, I refer to section 3.3 Adopter Categories.

11

Manhas, & Dangi, 2004). Rogers (2003) states that they are relatively more important at the

persuasion stage of the innovation-decision process. Interpersonal channels do not fit into one

specific group according to this categorization system, in such matter that they can be one or the

other (Rogers, 2003, p. 196).

A peculiar aspect of communication about innovations is that it is often associated with some

degree of heterophily. According to Rogers (2003), heterophily can be defined as “the degree to

which two or more individuals who interact are different in certain attributes, such as beliefs,

education, social status, and the like”. Replacing the term ‘different’ with ‘similar’ delivers the

definition for the opposite, being homophily. Most communication in interpersonal channels is of

homophile nature, a setting that results in more effective communication (Sahin, 2006). However,

some degree of heterophilous communication is required since homophily proves to act as an

invisible obstacle to the rapid circulation of innovations within a social system. This results from

the fact that similar people tend to interact with others in socially horizontal patterns, thus

preventing the vertical spreading of ideas to other layers in society. Consequentially, layers

characterized by higher socioeconomic status, more formal education and greater technical

expertise will be endowed with the most valuable intelligence.

Nature of the social system: norms and network interconnectedness

A social system can be defined by Rogers (2003) as “a set of interrelated units that are engaged in

joint problem solving to accomplish a common goal”. A system provides stability and regularity

to the behavior of individuals by accommodating a certain structure, characterized as patterned

arrangements between the units in a social system. This grants a degree of order and stability in

the predictability of human behavior. Within a social system it is often the case that cliques are

instinctively conceived between individuals. An individual is associated with a clique on the basis

of communication proximity and the degree to which two related actors in a network have

overlapping personal communication networks (Rogers, 2003).

Rogers (2003) defines a personal communication network as “those interconnected individuals

who are linked by patterned communication flows to a given individual”. A personal

communication network can either be interlocking or radial, the latter meaning that they are more

exposed to an individual’s surroundings. Therefore, radial personal communication networks play

a noteworthy part in the diffusion of innovations.

12

Through bridges and liaisons, one can provide network interconnectedness among different

cliques. As stated by Rogers (2003), interconnectedness is “the degree to which the units in a social

system are linked by interpersonal networks”. The higher the network interconnectedness of an

individual, the higher the individual’s innovativeness, the two are thus positively related.

According to Rogers (2003), the information exchange potential of communication links within a

social system is negatively related to homophily and communication proximity. In agreement with

this reasoning, the theory of ‘the strength of weak ties’ was formulated by Mark Granoveretter.

The argument that our close friends (strong ties) are more likely to be socially involved with one

another than our acquaintances (weak ties) takes a central stage in this theory (Granovetter, 1983).

As has already been declared, the nature of the communication structure has an important impact

on the diffusion of innovation. In line with this reasoning, one can state that the social structure

also influences an innovation’s diffusion, either facilitating or impeding it (Rogers, 2003). An

interesting aspect to consider in regard to the social structure of a system is the fact that the

interactions between individuals do not occur randomly. Instead, they mediate by shared standards

of evaluation and most importantly standards of moral nature, also called norms (Lockwood,

1956). Rogers (2003) describes norms as “the established behavior patterns for the members of a

social system” and also emphasizes on the fact that a social system can influence the diffusion of

innovations in an additional way, namely through consequences.

By either adopting or rejecting an innovation, certain changes to an individual or a social system

take place, defined as consequences. However, consequences have not been studied adequately in

literature due to a twofold argumentation. Firstly, change agents generally overestimate adoption

by itself, thus presupposing the innovation’s consequences to be positive in most cases. Secondly,

the measurement of consequences is often difficult given that evaluating change is not self-evident.

Consequences can be categorized according to three means of classification.

The first classification corresponds with a consequence being desirable or undesirable. A

consequence is classified as desirable when an innovation offers functional effects to an individual

or social system, just as undesirable consequences result from innovations offering dysfunctional

effects. It is often the case that an innovation causes both desirable and undesirable consequences,

thus inclining to think that only positive effects can be achieved without encountering undesirable

impacts is incorrect. Hence, one cannot manage the desired consequences separately from the

undesired consequences of an innovation. Next, the categorization of direct versus indirect

13

consequences can be made. Direct consequences are changes to an individual or social system that

occur immediately as a reaction to an innovation. Changes that take place as a result of direct

consequences can be labeled as indirect consequences, implying that these are consequences of

the consequences of an innovation. The third classification distinguishes anticipated and

unanticipated consequences. When the effects of an innovation are intended and recognized by

members of a social system, the consequence falls under the anticipated classification. On the other

hand, when the effects are neither intended nor recognized, it is an unanticipated consequence

(Rogers, 2003).

As stated above, consequences are in essence the changes an innovation induces to a social system,

obliquely affecting the existing balance of the social system. When virtually no change is

manifesting in the functioning or structure of a social system, one can speak of a stable equilibrium.

In the case that the rate of change in a social system is compatible with its ability to manage it, the

system finds itself in a dynamic equilibrium. However, it is possible that the social system cannot

cope with a given rate of change, implying the rate of change to be too fast to permit the system

to adjust. The ambition of a change agent is to accomplish a rate of change that results in a dynamic

equilibrium, and to bypass disequilibrium at all times (Rogers, 2003).

The purpose of diffusing innovations is to expand the level of good in a social system through its

consequences. However, one should also pay attention to a second dimension in regard to this

goal; the exact distribution of good among members of a social system. Consequences of the

diffusion of innovation are known to (involuntary) enlarge the socioeconomic gap between the

earlier and later adopter categories. The extent to which a consequence distributes the good more

or less equally, partly depends on the social structure of the system. As reported by Rogers (2003),

the following generalization can be made: “when a system's structure is already very unequal, the

consequences of an innovation (especially if it is a relatively high-cost innovation) will lead to

even greater inequality in the form of wider socioeconomic gaps”. But how come these

socioeconomic gaps continue to widen? The answer lies in three main rationales that have a hand

in this effect. Firstly, the group on the upper side of the socioeconomic gap have larger access to

information, thus creating a higher awareness of innovations. Secondly, they have greater access

to knowledge concerning the evaluation of innovations from peers. Lastly, “ups” in the

socioeconomic gap occupy greater slack resources compared to the “downs” for the adoption of

innovations. One can conclude that the widening of the socioeconomic gap is inevitable,

14

nevertheless appropriate actions can be taken to narrow - or at least not widen – the gap in the

social system.

Next to the socioeconomic gap, a more recent phenomenon created an additional gap namely the

digital divide. This gap came into existence due to the inequalities in benefits provided by the

internet between groups. Certain individuals gain more benefits from the internet compared to

relatively disadvantaged ones. One possible effort of narrowing this gap is to provide public access

to computers and internet (Rogers, 2003).

Extend of change agents’ efforts in diffusing the innovation

A change agent may be effectual in increasing the predictability of the rate of adoption of

innovations (Sahin, 2006). Rogers (2003) defines a change agent as “an individual who influences

clients' innovation decisions in a direction deemed desirable by a change agency”. The change

agent’s objective is to change behavior in a desired direction conducive to producing identifiable

outcomes. To obtain this end state, change agents should exert various roles. Firstly, the change

agent can trigger a need for change in the client’s viewpoint. By establishing a profound

information exchange relationship, possible problems the client encounters can be exposed and

diagnosed. It is then critical to create an intent of change in the client and see his or her intentions

translated into actions. This is not the point in process on which efforts of the change agent should

halt. Only when the adoption of the innovation is stabilized and discontinuance (explained later)

is beside the point, conditions to success are met and the change agent can terminate its relationship

with his or her clients (Rogers, 2003).

Certain factors can aid a change agent in achieving success, the latter defined as securing the

adoption of innovations by clients. Eight factors can be enumerated that positively influences the

extend of change agents’ efforts, as reported by Rogers (2003):

o the extent of the change agent's effort in contacting clients

o a client orientation rather than a change agency orientation

o the degree to which the diffusion program is compatible with clients' needs

o the change agent's empathy with clients

o his or her homophily with clients

o credibility in the clients' eyes

o the extent to which he or she works through opinion leaders

15

o increasing clients' ability to evaluate innovations.

Change agents can intensify the contact and communication they have with their clients by

engaging actively in social participation. Other factors that positively relate to contact are a high

socioeconomic status among clients, a high formal education and some degree of cosmopoliteness

(Rogers, 2003).

A slightly different term for a change agent who intensively contacts clients with the objective of

influencing their innovation-decision, but in a manner that is less than fully professional is an aide.

As a result of the lessened focus on professionalism, contracts provided by aides are of a lower-

cost nature compared to the ones of change agents. Secondly, reduced professionalism enables

aides to bridge the heterophily gap existing between professionals and clients, particularly with

the lower socioeconomic status clients. This degree of homophily is backed up with a larger safety

credibility perceived by its clients, meaning that they highly believe in the trustworthiness of the

communication channel or source. In direct opposition to the advantages of their more familiar

position is the less competence credibility earned, meaning that clients perceive the

communication channel or source less knowledgeable and expert-like (Rogers, 2003).

When the professional aspect of a change agent is completely set aside, one deals with opinion

leadership. The goal remains the same, trying to influence an individual’s attitudes and behavior

in a desired way. The difference, however, lies in the informality and relative frequency an opinion

leader tries to achieve his or her objective (Iyengar, Van den Bulte, & W. Valente, 2011).

1.3 Types of innovation

According to Rogers (2003), technological innovation can be categorized into different types

according to four dimensions of classification.

The first dimension relates product innovations and process innovations. The latter refers to

innovations in the way the firm operates, more specifically its production and marketing

techniques. Generally, process innovations tend to share the objective of increasing the efficiency

and effectiveness of production within the firm. Product innovations on the other hand, are

innovations in an organization’s output, thus in its goods and/or services. There is often some

interplay between the two types of innovation; a new process innovation may enable the

development of a new product, or the other way around is also possible. One should point out the

16

fact that an innovation must always be examined in its frame of reference; a process innovation

for one enterprise may at the same time be a product innovation for another (Schilling, 2013, p.

46).

A second dimension used to distinguish innovation is the continuum between radical and

incremental innovations. An incremental innovation arises when minor adjustments to existing

practices are done, resulting in an innovation that is not particularly new or cutting-edge. On the

other end of the range, the radicalness of an innovation can be typified as a combination of newness

and the degree of differentness (Schilling, 2013, p. 46-47).

Innovations can also be grouped as competence enhancing or competence destroying innovations.

The first group builds its innovation on the firm’s existing competencies, by that making the

existing firm’s knowledge base more valuable. The opposite is true for the second group, where

the innovation does not build on the firm’s existing competencies, thereby making the firm’s

knowledge base outmoded (Schilling, 2013, p. 47-48).

Finally, innovations can be classified as component or architectural innovations. An innovation is

labelled as component innovation when changes solely affect one or more components, thus not

greatly modifying the overall design of the system, also referred to as modular innovation. An

innovation is an architectural innovation if it entails changes to the overall configuration of the

system or the way components interplay with one another. It could be that not one component has

changed, just the way components interact with one another in the system may be redesigned.

However, a combination of both types of innovations is possible; both the individual components

and the general architecture may entail change. Depending on the type of innovation an enterprise

wishes to adopt, the extend of knowledge required of the firm differs. For a modular innovation,

the firm merely requires knowledge about that specific component, whereas for an architectural

innovation, knowledge should spread to the way different components collaborate with each other

to form the whole system (Schilling, 2013, p. 48-49).

These dimensions of classification are valuable for investigating and understanding possible

discrepancies between innovations. However, one should note that the different dimensions do not

form precise and distinct classes, instead they are all related to one another. Thus, the framework

above can be used to examine innovation while looking upon the dimensions as relative

dimensions whose signification is dependent on the context (Schilling, 2013, p. 49).

17

2. Patterns of innovation

2.1 Technology S-curves

One can distinguish two different processes that both tend to follow an evolution in the market

that is conform with an S-shaped curve. The first process explains the rate at which the

technology’s performance is improved in the marketplace, the second the rate of a technology’s

diffusion. According to Rogers (2003), a technology can be defined as “a design for instrumental

action that reduces the uncertainty in the cause-effect relationships involved in achieving a desired

outcome”. A technology is generally composed of two elements: hardware and software. The

latter encompasses the knowledge base, whereas hardware consists of the physical object or

material that embodies the software (Rogers, 2003).

Despite the fact that these processes describe two completely distinct aspects, they are related to

each other. One can easily comprehend that the faster a technology diffuses, the more incentive

arises to further invest in enhancing the innovation’s performance. On the other hand,

improvements in the innovation’s performance may encourage faster adoption (Schilling, 2013, p.

49-50). Not only does technology become more assured and valuable to users as it gets better

developed, the price also generally drops due to learning effects and scale advantages, making the

technology more accessible to broader audience and thus accelerating adoption (Schilling, 2013,

p. 53).

2.1.1 Technology performance improvements

The S-curve of performance improvement of technologies over their lifetimes can be generated by

plotting the technology’s performance against the amount of money and effort invested in the

technology, as represented in Figure 3.

To analyze this non-linear relationship between effort/money and performance, four phases in this

S-curve can be discerned. The first phase shows a slow initial performance improvement;

considerable efforts need to be put into striving for a limited increase in performance. The main

argument why performance improvement in this stage develops slow is because the fundamentals

of the technology are insufficiently understood up to now. Most of the efforts go to seeking

possible improvement methods or drivers of the technology’s improvement. In some cases, no

evaluation methods yet exist that allow researchers to assess the technology’s progress or its

potential, impeding them to move forward. According to B. Clarysse and K. Verleye (personal

18

communication, March 23, 2017), at the end of this phase, researchers or firms start to establish a

deeper understanding of the technology.

Figure3:S-curveoftechnologyperformance(Schilling,2013)

In the second phase, the graph shifts to display an accelerated improvement, partly due to the

established gain in legitimacy of the technology. Researchers and developers become more

attracted to participate in the technology’s development. Additionally, the earlier absence of

adequate evaluation methods for assessing technology’s performance has been lifted because

appropriate measures are developed. This permits researchers to accurately assess the technology’s

performance, monitor its improvements and compare the effects of various activities on its

performance. By doing so, researchers can commit to those activities that promise the highest gains

per unit of effort. It is only logical that this is translated in a rapidly increasing performance,

represented by an almost vertical line in the graph.

The third phase is characterized by decreasing return on efforts since technology appears to reach

its inherent restraints. Each marginal improvement tends to cost more and the S-curve starts to

flatten. Ultimately the physical limit is reached, and performance is at its farthest point.

Nevertheless, it is not always the case that technologies reach their physical limit, some get

outdated as a result of new arising technologies. When this occurs, the emerging technological

innovation can be labeled discontinuous, meaning that it has the potential to satisfy a comparable

market need, yet the base on which knowledge is built is entirely new. The disruptive technological

innovation can either have a steeper S-curve, or an S-curve with a higher performance limit (Figure

4). In both cases, at some point the returns to time/effort invested in the new technology surpass

the returns to time/effort invested in the incumbent technology. It is then likely to replace the

19

incumbent technology, however the rate at which this substitution takes place can vary

considerably (Schilling, 2013, p. 52-53).

Figure4:TechnologyS-Curves—IntroductionofDiscontinuousTechnology(Schilling,2013)

2.1.2 Technology diffusion

The graphical representation of diffusion of technology can be created in a somewhat similar

manner as the technology performance’s S-curve. Now the cumulative number of adopters of the

technology – instead of the technology’s performance – is plotted against the amount of money

and effort invested in the technology, resulting in an S-shaped curve as well (Figure 5).

Again, the S-curve can be analyzed by considering various phases. At first, the innovative

technology must be introduced to the market since it is unknown and unfamiliar to the social

system. Considerable time and effort thus needs to be put into increasing the number of adopters,

resulting in an initially slow adoption rate. After some time, the innovative technology becomes

better understood and applied by the mass market, thereby accelerating the adoption. At some

point in time however, the market eventually becomes saturated so that the rate of new adoptions

decreases. Altogether, these phenomena generate the S-shaped curve of technology diffusion. One

rather interesting aspect of technology diffusion is that it usually evolves slower than information

diffusion, a possible explanation for this may be of a twofold character. First of all, the

fundamentals of an innovative technology are often based on complex knowledge, making it

difficult for potential adopters to comprehend. Secondly, for most future potential adopters,

innovative technologies only become worthy when an adequate set of complementary resources is

developed to support the technology’s performance (Schilling, 2013, p. 53).

20

Figure5:TechnologyDiffusionS-CurvewithAdopterCategories

4(Schilling,2013)

2.2 Technology cycles

2.2.1 The innovation-development process

Generally, innovation in the literature is described on the basis of its adopters on the one hand and

the innovation by itself and its attributes on the other hand. Thus, focus of past research has been

on the left-hand tail of the S-shaped diffusion curve (Rogers, 2003). However, little attention has

been devoted to a third aspect of innovation, namely how innovations are essentially generated

(Hirschman, 1982). This can be captured in the innovation-development process, defined by

Rogers (2003) as “the process that consists of all the decisions, activities, and their impacts that

occur from recognition of a need or problem, through research, development, and

commercialization of an innovation, through diffusion and adoption of the innovation by users, to

its consequences”. Thus, potential influences of events and decisions that occur previous to an

innovation’s adoption take meaning in this process and have a significant part in the future

adoption process.

Experiencing some kind of problem or need often triggers one to further perform research on that

topic, thereby discovering useful insights. It is a fact that many, but not all, technological

4 Remark that the different adopter categories are indicated on this figure, these will be explained

in detail in a later paragraph (3.3 Adopter Categories).

21

innovations are developed out of research. In this area, one can categorize two types of research;

basic and applied research. The former represents original research that solely aims at advancing

scientific knowledge, whereas applied research has the objective to exploit this knowledge to

resolve practical issues (Rogers, 2003).

When considering the viewpoint one is in with regard to what factor initiates change, two lines of

approach can be distinguished. If the assumption is that technology causes changes in society, he

or she follows the technological determinism theory. The other is true for social constructionism,

when one believes society is to shape technological innovations (Rogers, 2003). Regardless the

line of approach followed, it is clear that, as illustrated by the previous S-curve (Figure 4),

technological change is cyclical. Every technological innovation may get overrun at a future point

in time by the emergence of a technological discontinuity, a process called creative destruction

(Schilling, 2013). Various studies have investigated why certain technological innovations

succeed and others fail and which companies are more likely to adopt or introduce a technology.

Based on the findings, several technology evolution models came to existence, for instance the

model of Utterback and Abernathy (Abernathy & Utterback, 1978; Schilling, 2013). This side of

theory is however not relevant for my research; therefore, one should consult the literature relevant

to this topic for further information.

3. Adoption of innovations

3.1 Process of adoption of innovation in organizations

Before elaborating on the process of adoption, a proper definition of an organization should be

presented in this context. Rogers (2003) defines an organization as “a stable system of individuals

who work together to achieve common goals through a hierarchy of ranks and a division of labor”.

An organizational structure is generally characterized by agreed-upon goals and targets, with a

prescribed structure and its corresponding roles, following established rules and regulations

specific to the firm (Jensen & Meckling, 1992). As a result, individual and informal patterns of

behavior in an organization tend to be relatively stable and predictable, whereas innovation evolves

continuously and is ongoing (Rogers, 2003).

Innovation is often considered as a single event phenomenon. However, innovation can also be

viewed from a multi-event perspective (Wolfe, 1994). The literature provides an enormous amount

of information concerning the different phases an organization can follow in the adoption process.

22

Klein and Sorra (1996) label the different steps as follows: awareness, selection, adoption,

implementation and routinization. Slightly different is the enumeration of Hage and Aiken (1970)

being evaluation, initiation, implementation and routinization. Another possible grouping of

phases can be knowledge awareness, attitudes formation, decision, initial implementation and

sustained implementation (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973). One can easily find dozens of extra

possible classifications in literature to divide the process of adoption. To be consistent and provide

a coherent whole in what follows, these phases can be grouped in accordance with research

published by Rogers (2003). Three general phases were formulated being pre-adoption, adoption

decision and post-adoption, frequently specialized as initiation, adoption and implementation

(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006).

Initiation

As already mentioned, innovation should not be examined as a distinct occurrence. Instead, it is

more of a sequence of well-established stages that an organization can follow (Damanpour &

Schneider, 2006). The primary activities of the first stage, initiation, comprise identifying a

possible need or problem that has potential to be solved, examining possible solutions and/or

becoming aware of other existing innovations. Potential suitable innovations that could offer a

solution to the need or problem are then evaluated and some of them can be proposed for adoption

(Hoeber & Hoeber, 2012; Rogers, 2003). It is in this phase that the existence of innovations is

discovered by organizational members. They then consider its suitability with the firm,

communicate with peers and request its adoption (Meyer & Goes, 1988). In line with this, Rogers

(2003) splits the initiation stage into two phases. The first stage is called agenda-setting which

incorporates the definition of a need, could be triggered by a performance gap or a conflict between

the organization’s performance and its predetermined expectations. In the next stage, called

matching, an appropriate fit for a problem from the organization’s agenda with an innovation is

prepared.

Adoption

Secondly, the adoption decision stage reflects making the decision to either accept a proposed

innovation as a desired solution, or to reject it (Wolfe, 1994). The recommended innovations are

evaluated by the senior management from a technical, financial and strategic perspective. If the

decision is to accept the proposed idea, resources for its acquisition, alternation and assimilation

are allocated by top organizational echelons, being managers, committees and boards (Meyer &

23

Goes, 1988; Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Important to point out here is the distinction between

an innovation’s adoption and its appropriation (Clark & Staunton, 1989). A confirmatory decision

to adopt an innovation can be made within the organization, this however does not necessarily

result in the innovation actually being implemented. As a result, appropriation covers the process

of translating the idea within the organization so that it fits the singular circumstances of the

adopting firm and becomes a situationally relevant innovation. It can thus be the case that the

innovation may need to be redesigned for it to answer to different organizational contexts (Newell

& Swan, 1995).

Implementation

The final stage consists of all the activities that are relevant for the innovation to be put into use

by organizational members, client or customers after the decision to adopt has been made

(Damanpour & Schneider, 2006; Meyer & Goes, 1988). Possible activities in this phase can be

modifying the innovation on the one hand, or changing organizational procedures and policies on

the other hand to optimize desired fit between the two. Preparing the organization for the use and

acceptance of the innovation by means of training, promoting the continued use in expectation of

the innovation to become a routine component of the organization, etc. are other key pertaining

actions in the implementation phase (Walker, Damanpour, & Devece, 2010; Hoeber & Hoeber,

2012).

In agreement with this, Rogers (2003) separates three stages: redefining/restructuring, clarifying

and routinizing. The first stage corresponds with the modification of the organization’s structure

to conform with the innovation. Re-invention of the innovation in order to better go with the

organization’s needs and its structure is also part of the redefining/restructuring stage. In the

second stage, the meaning of the innovation to the organization’s members becomes more

understandable due to the more widespread usage of the innovation. The final stage occurs when

the innovation leaves behind its independent identity and becomes one with the organization’s

customary actions. Closely related with the routinizing stage is the concept sustainability, defined

as the degree to which the innovation remains to be applied over time in the organization after the

completion of the diffusion program (Rogers, 2003). The ultimate objective of the process of

adoption is to accomplish sustainability of the innovation.

According to Rogers (2003), some factors influence the success of an innovation in an

organization, for instance the presence of an innovation champion. A champion can be seen as a

24

charismatic person who can overthrow the carelessness or resistance an innovation may give rise

to by personally backing the innovation. Whether the champion holds a highly authoritative

position or not is irrelevant, as long as the individual can coordinate the actions of others. Other

factors positively influencing the innovation’s sustainability are the extent to which the

participation is widespread and whether re-invention occurred.

3.2 The innovation-decision process

The innovation-decision process is defined by Rogers (2003) as “the process through which an

individual (or other decision-making unit) passes from first knowledge of an innovation to forming

an attitude toward the innovation, to a decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the new

idea, and to confirmation of this decision”. One can deduce five distinct steps from this definition

namely knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation and confirmation. An individual

requests information at different stages in the innovation-decision process beneficial to decrease

the uncertainty about expected consequences of the innovation (Rogers, 2003). It is essential for

individuals trying to diffuse their innovation to understand and account for these various stages in

order to provide the correct information in the proper way to potential future users (Yocco, 2015b).

The different stages are concisely clarified in the following paragraph from a potential adopter’s

point of view.

In the first stage, knowledge, an individual is exposed to the existence of an innovation and gains

an understanding of how it functions. They thus become aware of the innovation, although the

opportunity to track down additional information has not yet occurred. In the persuasion stage,

potential users are already aware of the innovation and start to actively take first steps to seek more

information. In this stage, the individual forms either a favorable or unfavorable attitude towards

the innovation. The decision stage encompasses the individual’s decision whether or not to try the

innovation, resulting in the adoption or rejection of the innovation. Research has shown that the

decision stage is the most personal step in this process. Individuals establish their decision partly

based on information available, on values and beliefs they hold, on their financial resources and

time, and on other competing innovations. The decision to make full use of a new product is thus

a conscious one, having been preceded by a deliberate procedure. As of the moment the individual

actually puts the innovation to use, we are in the implementation phase. The innovation gets tested

and used to varying levels in consonance with its purpose, for instance some innovations can be

used on a daily basis, whereas others are only employed few times a year. In many cases the

25

adopter adjusts or modifies the innovation during its process of adoption, the degree to which this

goes on is called re-invention of the innovation. The convenient outcome of a high degree of re-

invention is twofold. Firstly, a high degree results in a faster rate of adoption of an innovation and

secondly, it augments the degree of sustainability of the innovation. The last phase conceptualizes

confirmation, meaning that individuals will finalize their decision by seeking support for an

innovation-decision already made. The previous adoption decision may be overthrown if there are

conflicting reports about it. In this situation, one refers to discontinuance, being about the decision

to dismiss an innovation after having earlier adopted it. Depending on the underlying motive for

rejection, one can distinguish two types of discontinuance; replacement and disenchantment

discontinuance. When an idea is rejected beneficial to adopting a better and more desirable

innovation, the discontinuance is linked with the first category. One addresses the second category

when the previously adopted innovation falls behind expectations and underperforms. Later

adopters generally discontinue innovations to a greater extent than early innovators (Rogers, 2003;

Yocco, 2015b).

3.3 Adopter categories

Members of a social system can be classified into different adopter categories depending on their

innovativeness, the latter defined as the degree to which an individual or group of individuals is

relatively preceding the adoption of innovative ideas in comparison with other members of a social

group. Thus, depending on when an individual will adopt an innovation determines the ultimate

adopter category he or she belongs to. In past studies depicted in literature, a variety of

classification methods for adopter categories has been used. To be consistent throughout my

research, I will employ the typology of Rogers, which is generally followed in today’s diffusion

research and its applications (Rogers, 2003; Yocco, 2015).

The technology diffusion process tends to follow an S-shaped curve over time. When the non-

cumulative share of the different adopter categories is plotted against time on the horizontal axis,

the stemming curve is commonly bell-shaped (Figure 6) and approaches normality, although in

practice there may appear some skewness (Schilling, 2013, p. 56). Based on two mathematical

parameters of a normal distribution, the mean and standard deviation, the curve of market share

can be split up into five distinct adopter categories (Rogers, 2003).

26

Figure6:Normal(Bell-Shaped)CurveofMarketShare

The first category in line, the innovators, are the first individuals to adopt an innovation. A high

degree of uncertainty and complexity does not discourage an innovator. Instead, they embrace it

gladly with a quite daring purchasing behavior. Innovators are generally blessed with flexible

access to significant financial resources, this assists them in acquiring certain expensive

innovations and provides a safety-net in case of losses incurred due to failed adoption decisions.

Additionally, innovators typically occupy a higher position in their social network and are well-

informed with regard to the technology and knowledge behind the innovation. Innovators are

crucial in diffusing innovations because they are the ones that bring innovation into the social

system and can thus be seen as trendsetters. However, other adopter categories do not rely their

innovation-decision on this category since innovators’ decisions are not always well-considered

and of a constructive nature. Rogers estimates that 2.5% of a given population is positioned in this

group (Schilling, 2013, p. 56; Yocco, 2015b).

The early adopters represent the second category. Comparable to innovators, the early adopters

have easy access to financial resources, occupy a high position in their social system and have a

rather high education that permits them to understand the science behind the innovation. They, per

contra, are well accepted and integrated into their social circle, making them the ideal fit for

opinion leaders. In order to maintain this respected position, early adopters must make deliberate

27

and thought out decisions on which innovations to adopt and which not. It is this category to which

the other categories look to when they seek advice or facts with regard to innovations. In a way,

early adopters can thus be seen as messengers who introduce new products or innovations to their

near peers. Rogers estimates that 13.5% of a given population is positioned in this group (Schilling,

2013, p. 56; Yocco, 2015b).

The next category is labeled as the early majority, corresponding with a 34% share of individuals

in a social system according (Rogers, 2003). Unlike the previous categories, the early majority

does not hold great social influence and obtaining financial resources is not self-evident. They are

thus more reluctant to take risks on an innovation and will only consider adoption once their early

adopter peers think highly of it and it proves to be useful. Typically, this category adopts the

innovation before the average member of a social group and given its sizable percentage, their

adoption is crucial for an innovation to reach its critical mass (Schilling, 2013, p. 56; Yocco,

2015b).

The next 34% of adopters of a social system are in the category late majority (Rogers, 2003). Late

majority adopters are more likely to have a lower social status; hence they occupy absolutely no

social influence. In addition, their excessive income is scarce and below-average, resulting in a

skeptical attitude towards innovation. Once they start to endure some pressure from near peers and

when most of the innovation’s uncertainty has been resolved, they may consider potential

adoption. This could be at some point in time years after the introduction of the innovation

(Schilling, 2013, p. 56; Yocco, 2015b).

The final category groups all individuals that adopt the innovation last, termed as the laggards.

Laggards generally do not build their adoption decision on other adopter categories, instead they

primarily rely on personal past experience to make the decision whether or not to adopt innovation.

In order to make that decision, laggards must have high confidence in the innovation’s favorable

added value for it to counter their highly skeptical mindset towards innovations. In some cases,

the adoption of an innovation is a consequence of forced change. Rogers estimates that 16% of a

given population is positioned in this group (Schilling, 2013, p. 56; Yocco, 2015).

Figure 7 gives an overview of the different adopter categories and their dominant attributes

(Rogers, 2003).

28

INNOVATORS EARLY

ADOPTERS

EARLY

MAJORITY

LATE MAJORITY LAGGARDS

venturesome respect deliberate skeptical traditional

Figure7:DominantattributesofeachcategoryaccordingtoRoger(2003)

Thus, one can conclude that Rogers’ representation of the different adopter categories can be

framed into a bell-shaped, approximately normally distributed curve where time is plotted against

market share of the adopter categories. However, Moore (1991) investigated the continuation of

the different adopter categories and noticed the existence of something he refers to as ‘cracks in

the bell curve’ (Elgort, 2005). This phenomenon can be represented by the term chasm which

encompasses the gap located between two distinct adopter categories (Moore, 1991, pp. viii-ix).

Both the categories on each side of the chasm have their own unique characteristics and drivers,

in such a way that they each adopt a certain innovation for dissimilar motivations. Particularly in

the transition between early adopters and early majority, the underlying characteristics and drivers

show fundamental discrepancies. As already mentioned, early adopters seek revolutionary

opportunities in innovations and do not get discouraged from high prices, their aim is to be the

first in their social system and gain competitive advantage over later adopters. Unlike early

adopters, the early majority do not take interest in dramatic changes that lead to revolutions in their

social system, instead they simply look for evolutionary ways to improve their operations’

productivity. On top of that, they prefer innovations that work accurately without bugs and can

easily be integrated into their existing resources (Elgort, 2005). According to Rogers (2003), the

differences between earlier and later adopters can be organized into (1) socioeconomic status, (2)

personality variables, and (3) communication behavior, a table is provided in appendix to clarify

the variables (appendix 2.1).

Now that a great deal of literature has been covered related to innovations, their patterns and

adoption, I will continue by positioning my research in the sports sector.

29

Theoretical Framework

There exists a general tendency of growing interest worldwide for innovation in sport through

technology advances. Many sports organizations are trying to gain competitive advantages by

means of innovation (Ringuet-Riot, Hahn, & James, 2013). Note that this tendency is situated in

recent years, more specifically in the mid to late 20th century. Technological innovations and their

application in sport settings were mainly ad hoc rather than systematic initiatives in past times

(Adair & Vamplew, 1997). Back then, the early adopters of innovation were mostly sports where

technology was not difficult to integrate and essential to the sports’ performance, for instance

sports like rowing and cycling. More and more, the role of technology accelerated in the training,

development and competitive success of athletes in professional sport settings. Illustrative

examples can be found in literature, for instance Philips (2000) stated that increasingly innovation,

innovative coaches and sport scientists were embraced in athletics and swimming to create

performance excellence in international contests. A similar situation was found in Great Britain in

the early 2000s where new approaches and greater integration of sport science contributed to the

performance success in swimming (Green & Houlihan, 2005). One can thus acknowledge the

general tendency of a sports organization’s increased comprehension of the vital role technological

innovation can play for elite sports. Increasingly, technological innovation is viewed as integral to

every facet of performance and athlete development (Commonwealth of Australia, 2010).

It can be stated that sports organizations generally favor the preservation of traditions within their

sports, thereby positioning itself relatively reluctant to the adoption of new technologies (Smith &

Stewart, 2010). Given the recent developments however, many sports organizations now search

for competitive advantages through innovation and regard technological innovations as a key

distinction between “being competitive and being on the podium” (Ringuet-Riot, Hahn, & James,

2013). The main emphasis is being placed on applying technology for measuring and defining

performance. To illustrate, the use of the stopwatch has been set aside by micro measurement or

employing a heart rate monitor has become commonplace at competitive levels of sport (Wixted,

Billing, & James, 2010). Hahn (2011) summarizes technological innovation applications to high

performance sport in four categories that broadly encapsulate the performance context: (1)

determining characteristics of elite performers, (2) identifying talent, (3) testing and refining

performance, (4) monitoring competition performance outcomes.

In the next paragraph, a detailed explanation of the applied method is provided.

30

Method

1. Research setting

This research is aimed at investigating the use of innovations within the sport sector, more

specifically the basketball industry. The research can be classified under the label ‘exploratory’

given the fact that it investigates a social phenomenon with minimum expectations to develop

explanations of this phenomenon (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). It is important to formulate an initial

research focus in order to avoid to become overwhelmed by the volume of data (Eisenhardt, 1989).

In this section, the research setting outline is provided. This because research on innovations has

demonstrated that a clear understanding of the organizational and environmental contexts into

which innovations are introduced is essential to the further evolution and acceptance of the

innovations (Newell & Swan, 1995). Both the research performed by Van de Ven (1986) and Clark

(1987) confirm the importance of the institutional context and the social embedding of innovations

in the research of innovations.

Historically, the sports sector was established by volunteers following their passion to run sports

clubs out of personal dedication. To date, volunteers still play a critical role in the organization of

the sports sector, however a trend towards new and innovative ways to increase participation

and/or excellence can be noticed (Newell & Swan, 1995). Just as the management literature

suggest that an organization’s ability to innovate is key in its competitiveness within the market

(Bolwijn & Kumpe, 1990), the same can be stated for sports organizations. They, similar to

organizations, also have to compete for limited resources in order to handle competition and

advertise their sport. Possible examples of limited resources in this context could be members of

the sport organization, possible subsidies offered by the government, media attention,

sponsorship… (Newell & Swan, 1995).

2. Methodology

2.1 Unit of analysis

The population targeted in the research comprises basketball teams playing at the top level in

Belgium. No binding restrictions were formulated, every team in the Euromillions Basketball

League was a possible candidate for this research, regardless of the team’s current degree of

innovativeness, or its position in the ranking. Fortunately, the Belgian basketball teams showed an

adequate willingness to participate. Eventually, six out of the ten teams in the League were

31

included in the sample as research subjects.

2.2 Research design

The necessary data was obtained by means of qualitative research, more specifically through

personal interviews. Qualitative research is perfectly suited for research aimed at understanding

phenomena within their specific context, uncovering patterns of relationships and developing or

refining theories (Bradley, Curry, & Devers, 2007). Since interviews are highly effective in

gathering empirically rich data, especially for highly episodic and infrequent phenomena

(Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007), the choice of performing qualitative personal interviews is well

substantiated for this research. For the methodological departure, I will select cases relevant to the

research subject and perform an in-depth coding technique to descriptively investigate how

technological innovation in the basketball sector is adopted. The objective is to perform an

exploratory research, not to formulate a theory of any kind. Lincoln & Guba (1985) state that by

means of an exploratory research, social phenomena can be investigated with minimal a priori

expectations to develop explanations of these phenomena.

2.3 Identification cases

Since the population targeted was situated at the top of professional basketball in Belgium, it was

obvious to retrieve a list of teams playing in this top division to identify the cases. (the resulting

list can be found in appendix 3.1). The next step then was to find a way to reach these research

subjects. The first and foremost priority was to receive a positive reply on the question to

participate in my research. Additionally, it was of great importance to get in contact with the

appropriate people, thus informants possessing a high knowledge of the innovative development

within their organizations. To put these requirements into practice, I created a one-pager

summarizing the purpose of my research (appendix 3.2). Through referrals, I ended up receiving

the desired contacts. More specifically, with the help of Kristof De Mey (Sports technology &

business developer at Victoris, Ghent University), the one-pager was distributed on the annual

general meeting led by Stefan Garaleas (Secretary General at Basketbelgium). At the request of

Mr. Garaleas, Wim Van De Keere (General Manager at Pro Basketball League) provided me a list

with contact details of all teams agreeing to participate in my research. Figure 8 summarizes the

descriptive data of the cases analyzed.

32

Figure8:Descriptivedataofthecasesanalyzed

2.4 Interview protocol

Before approaching the contact persons of each case for the actual arrangement of an in-depth

interview, a set of predefined questions was formulated. This semi-structured interview protocol

was reused over the different cases, allowing an increase in the comparability of the results. An

overview of the questions can be found in appendix 3.3.

Once the premature interviewing instrument was on point, the contact persons were approached

via telephone to arrange a face-to-face meeting at a preferred location. An e-mail was sent to

confirm the meeting. Throughout the progress of the interviewing, several aspects came to my

attention that were not yet prematurely included in the interview protocol. Each time an interview

had been taken and analyzed, the previous interview protocol was updated with extra aspects of

possible importance discovered in prior interviews. These additional adjustments to the data

collection instruments thus allowed me to probe emergent themes and take advantage of the

uniqueness of a specific case. This controlled opportunism makes perfectly sense given the fact

that such an alternation is likely to provide new theoretical insights (Harris & Sutton, 1986). As

mentioned earlier, the interview protocol formed the basis for the interview, though additional

questions could be asked to clarify given answers and avoid misunderstandings.

With the interviewee’s consent, the conversation was recorded and digital notes were stored. The

earliest possible, an integral and verbatim transcription of the interview was made in Word. Next,

the transcription was sent back to the interviewee to check if the desired message was correctly

communicated, in a way increasing the construct validity (Mortelmans, 2013). In addition, the

33

transcriptions of the two first interviews were handed over to an expert in qualitative questioning

(Prof. Katrien Verleye, Department of Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Service Management) for

critical judgment. This, on its turn, increased the internal validity. The interviews’ verbatim

transcriptions also allowed me to re-examine them several times, resulting in a more profound

analysis.

2.5 Data analysis

The analyses of the data will be based on Eisenhardt’s multiple case approach. However, given

that the preconditions for applying this approach are not fulfilled, I will thus only apply the insights

of the approach and use this as a structuring instrument for my research. The overall objective is

to first become deeply familiar with each case as an entity by itself, thus a solid within-case data

analysis. This allows the unique patterns of each case to become visible before generalized patterns

are searched across the different cases. Additionally, in a later stage, this profound familiarity with

each case will speed up the cross-case comparison (Eisenhardt, 1989). The next step consists of

searching for cross-case patterns. One way of doing this is by selecting categories and then looking

for similarities as well as differences between the different cases. According to Eisenhardt (1989),

categories can be suggested by existing literature or simply chosen by the researcher (I depicted

the categories based on open and axial coding, as explained later). The overall idea behind these

cross-case searching tactics is to push researchers to move beyond initial perceptions.

By using the constant comparative method, hidden patterns in multiple interviewees’ viewpoints

– specified mainly in their words - can be identified. This method is marked by an iterative process

in which concepts suggested by the data are recognized through a profound analysis of each

sentence, line and paragraph of the transcribed interviews (Bowen, 2006). This method makes use

of coding to analyze qualitative data, coding considered by Charmaz (2011) to serve as the critical

link between data collection and their explanation of meaning. Vogt, Vogt, Gardner, & Haeffele

(2014, p. 13) define a code as “a researcher-generated construct that symbolizes or translates data”.

An illustrative quote by Saldaña (2016, p. 4) is worth mentioning to further specify the concept:

“just as a title represents and captures a book, film, or poem’s primary content and essence, so

does a code represent and capture a datum’s primary content and essence”.

In order to spot similarities, differences and general patterns, every code was constantly set against

all other codes. As a result, certain themes gradually emerged that captured abstract aspects in the

34

data. Morse and Field (1995) define thematic analysis as “the search for and identification of

common threads that extend throughout an entire interview or set of interviews”. Themes link

substantial portions of the interviews together (Bowen, 2006). In the first stages of the analysis,

themes tend to be of a more concrete nature, whereas in the subsequent phases they develop into

large, overarching themes based on concrete evidence provided by the data. The correct

terminology is open, axial and selective coding. In short, open coding refers to developing

concepts and properties that emerge spontaneously in the data. Axial coding consists of identifying

connections and relationships among the open codes, thus relating the concepts in categories.

Selective coding deals with the development of a theoretical scheme based on one core category

and its relationships with other categories. The coding process comes to an end when no additional

data is able to uncover any new aspect with regard to the developing theory, e.g. theoretical

saturation is reached (Bowen, 2006; Corbin & Anselm, 1994).

3. Findings

As has already been mentioned, the constant comparable method was employed to thoroughly

examine the data provided by the qualitative interviews. By means of a coding technique, a

theoretical representation of the researched phenomenon was developed. In the first stage - the

open coding - each line, sentence and paragraph was read multiple times in search of the answer

of what it is about. Several concepts became visible, for instance budget, priorities, social media,

regulation… In order to draw a more transparent picture, these concepts were combined in

overarching categories based on the affinity in characteristics. This course of actions coincides

with the second stage, namely axial coding. The result of these two steps was then combined into

one table, with provided quotes that subscribe and further explain the designated concepts

(attachment 3.4). The quotes are provided in English; I refer to attachment 3.5 for the translations.

A simplified representation of the open and axial coding is presented here in Figure 9, with the

different concepts highlighted.

35

CATEGORY CONCEPT

I. ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS Available resources

Budget

Personnel

- Time

- Skills

Infrastructure

Culture organization

age coaches

priorities

mindset towards innovation

II. SOCIETAL CHARACTERISTICS Pressure

innovative (low)

social media (high)

Sports Culture

III. SOURCES OF INNOVATION Internal

personal experience

active search

External

contact person

university

e-mail

IV. DRIVERS FOR PROFESSIONALISM Product Development

quality delivery

- assets

- infrastructure

regulation

Media attention

Marketing

Figure9:Simplifiedoverviewoftheopenandaxialcodingsteps

36

The data analysis terminated in the identification of four key themes that help analyze the

innovation development within sport organizations and the interplay with one another. The four

key themes are Organizational characteristics, Societal characteristics, Sources of innovation and

Drivers for professionalism. In the final – selective coding – step, one category is chosen to be the

core category, in this case Organization. All other categories are then related to Organization,

resulting in a theoretical framework (Figure 10).

Figure10:TheoreticalframeworkconcerninginnovationwithinaBelgianbasketballorganization

In this framework, Organizational characteristics operates as the core category around which all

other categories are draped. A key characteristic of the research’s core category is that it can

explain what the research is all about in one or two words (Corbin & Anselm, 1994). In this paper,

the research is about technological innovation within basketball organizations, the organization

itself thus forms the basis for the analysis.

In the following, each of these categories and their coherent concepts are discussed in detail, along

with the reciprocal connections in order to provide a comprehensive answer to the following

research questions:

37

Research question 1: How do people working for top teams in Belgium describe the

decision making related to the implementation of innovative technologies in basketball?

Research question 2: What factors influence the innovation decision process?

Research question 3: What is the future vision of Belgian basketball teams regarding the

use of innovative technologies?

3.1 Research question 1

How do people working for top teams in Belgium describe the decision making related to the

implementation of innovative technologies in basketball?

In order to provide a factual answer to this question, all data relevant to the decision making of

innovations was listed and rearranged in chronological order to provide a coherent observation.

3.1.1 Proposition phase

Before one could even start with the consideration and evaluation of potential innovations, there

should be an innovation put forward, otherwise there is no question of a decision process. The

process is thus initiated by a proposition of innovation; its origin dependent on the area the

innovation will cover. Two broad areas of innovation can be identified, the first covering every

innovation related exclusively to pure basketball, whereas the second area comprises the medical

aspect. For the latter, possible propositions of innovation can originate from the medical staff, e.g.

doctor, physiotherapist, … However, this area of innovations will not be covered in this paper due

to the simple fact that this paper’s main focus is basketball specific. Medical innovations can occur

in various sports or other fields of profession, thus referral to other literature seems best suited in

this case. To get back to the first, purely basketball oriented area of innovations, different sources

of propositions were identified in the interviews. This coincides with the category Sources of

Innovation found by the constant comparative method and coding technique.

The different concepts related to this category will be explained in the next paragraphs. Sources

of Innovation consists of two concepts that serve as a medium through which propositions of

innovations can pass on to sports organizations, namely internal and external sources of

innovation.

38

A. Internalsources

This concept encompasses all propositions for innovation that originate from within the sports

organization. In other words, a person engaged in a sports organization – for instance an employee,

someone of the management team, a player…– that comes up with a suggestion for innovation is

an example of an internal source of innovation for that specific sports organization.

Quote III.a: If it is purely basketball technical, at times the proposition originates from

coaches or sometimes I [Team Manager] see things …

Two types of internal sources were found, namely the sub concepts ‘active search’ and ‘personal

experience’, elaborated in the following paragraph.

a. Personal experience

Personal experience refers to the practical contact people operating in a sports organization have

had with certain innovative technologies that have to do with basketball. An example to illustrate

could be a new head coach suggesting a certain technology that he/she has worked with in his/her

previous employment. Or a player coming from abroad where he/she was familiar to work with a

specific technological innovation and suggesting it to his/her current team. Furthermore, personal

experience also encompasses the observation of innovate facts or events touching the basketball

segment. Thus, experience can also be established by picking up certain innovative aspects that

come across a member of the sports organization. Based on the data retrieved from the interviews,

most of the propositions of innovation internally originate from people within the sports

organization sharing their personal experience, knowledge and thoughts (as illustrated in the

framework).

b. Active search - low

The second sub concept that contributes to the internal suggestions of innovation is defined as

active search. Evidence was found in the data suggesting that people within the sports organization

generally do not engage in the search for innovative technologies or to a limited extend. One reason

put forward by some interviewees that accounts for this rather low level of active research is that

sports organizations are generally satisfied with the current running of things. No need for much

modification in innovativeness exists, thus resulting in low initiation of action to find innovative

technologies within the organization. Although the eager and enthusiastic search for innovative

solutions typically is moderate for Belgian teams, the majority interviewed does go and observe

teams abroad to enlarge knowledge on how things are done there and explore possible ideas for

39

improvement. The countries the most looked at for inspiration are Germany and France, the former

acting as primary country.

There is an existing connection between the two sub concepts, more specifically a one-way

relationship. The rationale behind this is that the degree of active search influences the extend of

personal experience one possesses within a sports organization. To clarify this link, an example –

based on the interviews – can be given. It was the case that the assistant coach annually traveled

to the USA to visit the Summer League, an event where all the latest technology and most

advanced gadgets are shown to the public. The assistant coach then evaluates what innovations

could possibly be of use for his club and only passes on those that could deliver added value. Thus,

by actively engaging in the search for technological innovations, one can increase his/her

knowledge and in turn his/her personal experience.

B. Externalsources

Consistently, propositions for innovation can also originate from outside the sports organization.

Three sub concepts that are of importance regarding the external sources of innovation are briefly

described in the next paragraphs.

a. Email

In every case, the interviewee could confirm that they have been approached by promotional

mailing in the past. When the question then was asked how they respond to those types of offerings,

the majority declared that these promotional emails are at most quickly discussed internally. Based

on the information provided in the email, a brief cost benefit analysis is made and the decision

whether or not to contact the sender is dependent on that result. The biggest portion of the

promotional mailings receive no further attention from the sports organization’s side. One can

conclude that promotional mailing in case of sports organizations thus seems to miss its intended

effect, resulting in a low effectiveness.

b. University

It appears that three out of six of the teams interviewed currently have or have had an interplay –

applicable for the context of innovation – with a Belgian university. For each of the cases, the

interplay was established with the single purpose of creating a mutually beneficial situation for the

two parties. Generally, research departments of universities look for real-life settings to perform

40

their research. For some specific research objectives, the top-level sport segment can serve as the

appropriate research context. Because of this, some universities’ research departments benefit

from a relationship with top basketball teams that grand them excess to this appropriate setting.

As already has been mentioned, it is about a mutual relationship thus the sports organization also

has to benefit from it. They generally get advantage through the consequences of the performed

research. A suitable example came out of the interviews; there was one team amongst the

interviewed that was the only one to use a specific state-of-the-art technology in practice and game

situations. During my market research, I came across this specific technology as well. It is a

technology that is already been used in other professional sports and proven its usefulness, for

instance in football. However, due to the high price tag, its diffusion within basketball is difficult

and thus limited. Through the collaboration with the university, this team was able to make use of

the technology, and thus benefit from the advantages and opportunities created by the technology’s

adoption. Similar situations were found for the other two cases. One can thus conclude that an

interplay between universities and sports organizations proves to be an effective medium to

introduce technological innovations into the basketball sector.

c. Contact

The last sub concept that contributes to the external sources of innovation refers to the

communication between members – that have a certain familiarity with one another – of different

organizations. There is a link for information between the sports organization and an external

party, provided by a personal relationship between members representing each organization.

Through this link, propositions for innovations can be made directly to the sports organization. For

instance, five out of six teams interviewed use the same recording and video analyses technology.

When asked how they came into contact with this technology, they all pointed to the same

representative, let us address him as Mr. X. Noteworthy to mention is the fact that Mr. X is a

former basketball player at top level Belgian basketball and thus sits on a significant

comprehension of the basketball sector. His prior experience in the sector has provided him with

an extended network of connections within the different teams, since a lot of former basketball

players operate in the coaching staff and/or management of basketball clubs. An acquaintance is

thus able to introduce – or at least suggest – technological innovations in a simple and accessible

manner by utilizing his/her personal contact network. The advice or propositions suggested by

acquaintances concerning innovative technologies thus tends to be an effective source of

innovation for basketball organizations (as illustrated in the framework).

41

3.1.2 Evaluation phase

Now that all possible mediums through which innovations can be proposed are discussed in detail,

the next step can be carefully examined. In the next step, a proposed innovation is evaluated in

terms of usefulness on the one hand and feasibility of the innovation’s adoption on the other hand.

A. Usefulness

The main elements enumerated regarding the usefulness of an innovation in the interviews were

o added value: the innovation should entail sufficient benefits, financially and/or non-

financially; examples of advantages provided by an innovation are increased efficiency,

augmented flow of information, …

o ease of use: the innovation should not be too complex to handle; rather convenient use is

desired

o instant feedback: being able to immediately act on the information provided

B. Feasibility

It can be the case that an innovation has potential to serve as a promising utility for the sports

organization in the near future, however this is no guarantee for a positive reply to the adoption

question. The feasibility of the adoption of the innovation also has to be evaluated, more

specifically in terms of resources required and the adequacy of current infrastructure.

a. Available Resources

Whenever the question was asked in the interviews how a proposed innovation was assessed on

whether or not to implement – besides the usefulness –, the correspondent surely responded in

terms of available resources. The evaluation of the resources required by an innovation

corresponds with the concept Available Resources of the category Organizational Characteristics

(cfr. framework). The two main organization’s resources that came up during the interviews were

budget and personnel, the former being the most mentioned one.

Budget

This is the dominating factor in an organization’s resources concept. Whenever there is a

suggestion for innovation, an estimation of the possible added value of that innovation is done. In

the next step, the valuation of the potential benefits provided by the innovation are put in contrast

42

with its price tag, generally referred to as cost-benefit analyses. Dependent on the result of this

analyses and the availability of budget, a decision can be made whether or not to implement the

innovation. Based on the qualitative data, this is the primary argument for an innovation’s

dismissal. This result is not unlikely to presume for the reason that funds in basketball

organizations generally are rather scarce. Their main income comes from membership fees from

youth players, this however is not sufficient to guarantee a smooth operation in this sector.

Additional funds must be attracted, for the most part through the medium of sponsorship

contributions.

Personnel

The second organizational resource that came up refers to the organization’s available personnel.

Not only is the amount of budget assessed, the proposed innovation is also being evaluated in

terms of manpower it will require. For the sake of simplicity, two types of innovations can be

considered: the first one facilitating certain aspects within the organization’s operations, thus

diminishing the workload through efficiency, and the second type creating an extra layer of value

on top of the existing organization’s operations, thereby increasing the workload due to an increase

in information inflow. In this case study research, most of the technological innovations were of

the second type. Given the fact that the implementation of those innovations often results in a raise

in workload, an evaluation is done to determine whether or not the personnel base is sufficient.

This evaluation is dual; not only should there be time available for the information’s processing,

the necessary skillset to correctly deal with this information should be present as well. It is

therefore in this sub concept that a bottleneck can be found. Due to the fact that most sport

organizations count highly on volunteers, their personnel base is not sufficient to bear additional

workloads. This in combination with the limited budget available – which can serve as a barrier to

hire extra manpower – can block the adoption of innovations within sport organizations.

b. Infrastructure

Feasibility of an innovation also takes into account the current infrastructure of the sports

organization, mainly referring to the gym in which the sports organization operates. How can a

sports organization’s infrastructure have any possible impact on its innovativeness? During the

analysis of the data, it came to my attention that a lot of teams in first division in Belgium are not

in the possession of their proper gym. As a consequence, it can happen that teams are forced to

practice at different locations, thereby making it difficult for place-dependent innovations to being

43

implemented. Additionally, since most gyms are not privately held by the sports organization and

often serve for public use as well, no or limited storage capacity is available. The latter complicates

the adoption of physical innovations due to practical issues. In the framework, one can notice

infrastructure is labeled with the tag of a bottleneck; a clarification for this will be provided in the

answering of research question 3.

3.1.3 Decision phase

After the necessary evaluation steps have been performed, the final decision with regard to the

adoption of the proposed innovation should be made. It can be the case that a proposed innovation

has convinced the sports organization that it could be of utility in the forthcoming period and

adequate resources are available to support the adoption, yet the ultimate decision stands negative.

This can happen due to the fact that the ultimate decision still lies in the hands of the final decision

maker, an individual holding a personal view on innovations as well. One can refer to this as the

‘mindset towards innovations’, being part of the organization’s culture (cfr. framework).

A. Mindset towards innovations

This sub category of the organization’s culture deals with an item mentioned during the interviews

that had to do with employees of the sports organization. Mindset towards innovations refers to

the attitude held by members of the organization with respect to innovations. It predetermines a

person’s response to and interpretation of situations concerning the implementation of innovation.

The organization’s mindset towards innovation is in close relation with the two other sub concepts

of Culture (explained in research question 2). Generally, the final decision lies in the hands of the

Sportive Manager. However, when the adoption of the innovation goes hand in hand with

significant estimated expenses, the decision shifts from the Sportive Manager to the Chairman.

Quote I.a: I decide as Sportive Manager [on the innovation], and the President when a lot

of money is involved

The following figure was developed to provide a visual overview of the different steps a sports

organization goes through in the innovation-decision process (Figure 11).

44

Figure11:TheInnovation-DecisionprocessforaBelgianbasketballorganization

3.2 Research question 2

What factors influence the innovation decision process?

When going through the innovation-decision process, a great number of factors can influence the

building blocks that form the different steps. In order to provide a comprehensible answer to the

question, I will structure the observations of influences in accordance with the three steps of the

innovation decision process found in the previous question namely Propositions, Evaluation and

Decision. I refer to the lower part of Figure 11 for a graphical overview.

3.2.1 Influencers in the Proposition phase

In this phase, no explicit influencing factors could be noticed. The proposition of innovations

depends on nothing but suggestions put forward through internal and/or external sources.

Propositions suggested through the internal channel are mainly dominated by suggestions out of

personal experience; efforts put into active search for possible innovations are rather modest. By

that as it may, no stimuli to boost these efforts of the employees could be observed in the data; not

one of the teams interviewed suggested some kind of influence of society to be innovative.

45

Quote II.1b: … we have a feeling that it is not something …

You thus experience no pressure from the society to be innovative?

Indeed, completely not. Because if we were not the ones looking for things ourselves, then

…

The active engagement of employees in the search for potentially interesting innovations thus

stands at a low level and seems to remain standing at that level due to lacking pressure from society

to intensify efforts (no connection between pressure from society to be innovative and the active

search as a source of innovations can be found in the theoretical framework, Figure 8).

On the other hand, one can notice for the external sources of innovations that little effort has been

done by companies in trying to sell their ideas and products to sports organizations.

Quote III.b: So yes, on this current moment, these are the technological innovations we are

using and it´s my opinion that this is sufficient for the moment. But there are no other

parties that really anticipate to this situation

The predominant technique companies bring into play is sending promotional emails, not a very

serviceable approach as made evident by its effectiveness already discussed in the previous

section. During the interviews, there was only one innovation mentioned that had been proposed

in a personal manner by an external individual. As has been mentioned, this specific innovation

was implemented in five out of the six basketball organizations. However, no prove in the

interviews was found for other companies trying to sell their product by also applying this

efficacious approach.

Quote III.a: I mean, I honestly do not know if there are other firms like Synergy that offer

something similar. I only know Synergy and I have never been approached by another firm

that offers that.

To recapitulate and quickly sum up the prior observations, a sports organization tends to not

actively perform market research with regard to potential technological innovations and perceives

no pressure to change this aspect. Furthermore, companies developing technological innovations

tend to approach basketball organizations not sufficiently and in a less personal manner. One can

thus notice a perceived chasm between the two sources of innovations – internally and externally

– or in other words between the basketball organization and the selling companies. This

46

phenomenon is illustrated in the framework with a bottleneck and results in a small base of

proposed innovations in the first phase of the innovation decision phase.

3.2.2 Influencers in the Evaluation phase

As modeled in the innovation decision figure, the Evaluation phase is composed of two main

elements, namely ‘Usefulness’ and ‘Feasibility’ of the innovation. An innovation’s usefulness is

not influenced by other factors, merely by the innovation itself, whereas this is not valid for an

innovation’s feasibility. The feasibility of an innovation is – as explained earlier – evaluated in

terms of resources required and the adequacy of infrastructure. The former is affected by the

priorities of the sports organization in total, and by the influence of social media for the budget

part specifically; a clarification is provided in the following paragraphs for both of the influences.

A. Priorities–Availableresources

Like every other organization, a sports club has a specific strategy in mind and acts on its game

plan. The course of action of the sports organization is thus in line with predetermined goals and

clear priorities are set to be followed. These priorities inherently lump together with the

organization’s culture. Therefore, decisions with regard to the adoption of innovations are

evaluated on whether or not they fit the organization’s general course of action. During the analysis

of the interviews, it came to my attention that often a consideration had to be made between

adopting an innovation on the one hand and focusing on its core activities on the other hand.

Quote I.3c: The club allows us to use whatever technology we desire; they just say ‘then

you will have less budget for your players’. Thus, it’s always a matter of finding a bit of a

balance

Not necessarily because the organization’s culture did not allow innovation to occur, but instead

because the organization’s available resources were too limited. Priorities thus had to be followed

with regard to the allocation of the available resources, often obliquely delaying innovation. The

relationship between an organization’s priorities and its available resources is thus of a one-way

nature, where the priorities – as part of the organization’s culture – determine the allocation of the

available resources, namely budget and personnel.

47

B. Socialmediapressure–Budget

A second influence on the available resources – more specifically the organization’s budget –

stems from the increased requirements on social media activity by society. Briefly described,

social media refers to all web-based communication tools that provide the means for organizations

to interact with its clientele by both sharing and consuming information. All interviewees indicated

that they indeed became aware of this recent development and started to act on it. According to

the majority interviewed, social media has thus become an important strategic point on the

organization’s agenda and efforts have gone up to meet the requirements of society.

There is a general tendency in the economic circles of growth in preoccupation of social media

due to its increased importance. Given the fact that social media gains importance, organizations

should tag along this movement and invest decidedly in social media, or trail behind competitors

and fall short. Society thus shapes a climate in which the efforts put into social media are highly

valued and crucial for survival. This change in atmosphere has recently been noticed in the

basketball sector as well, as indicated by most interviewees. For this specific context, the question

can then be asked how pressure exerted by society concerning social media influences the

innovativeness in a sports organization? The effect is indirect; the ideal result of a more active

social media strategy touches multiple aspects, all of which in the end positively affect the

available budget of the sports organization (as indicated on the framework and the innovation-

decision figure). By investing more in social media, the sport organization can increase its

publicity and built on its public notice, thereby creating workable opportunities to convert

occasional bystanders into true followers and/or gain additional new supporters. Furthermore, an

attractive and pleasurable social media strategy can enrich the customer experience. Social media

can thus serve as a medium for a sports organization through which a close affinity with its

supporters can be created. With results of the enlarged and more strengthened customer base, the

sports organization can better position itself during negotiations with possible sponsors and

leverage more advantageous terms.

Quote V.1a: the results are followed up by the number of likes, how many of this and how

many of that, how many times posts get shared etc. These figures are then used to take to

potential new sponsors

Additionally, given that the use of social media for marketing purposes is a relatively cheap way

of working, the overall benefits generally outweigh the additional costs associated with the

48

intensified social media strategy. One of the interviewees still took a very skeptical view of social

media and its usefulness in the sports organization, however the majority of the interviewees agrees

on the notable importance of an engaging social media strategy.

Quote V.1b: We do experience some pressure for Facebook and other social media, on that

aspect there has been a lot of focus lately, although I have my doubt about that. I think it

is more of a disadvantage than an advantage (smiles) … I’m still wondering when it will

yield €1, I don’t see that happening

Quote II.1c: In my opinion, a good communication with our fans is of extreme importance.

Without a fan, without a supporter, who are you? You can just as well shut down the place.

We should always put the fan in the spotlight, so that we can attract more fans

Pressure from society to invest more in social media thus indirectly influences the available

budget, a crucial parameter in the evaluation stage.

3.2.3 Influencers in the Decision phase

To quickly recapitulate, the main activity performed during the Decision phase is to formulate a

specific answer to the question whether or not to implement a certain innovation. The individual

in charge of the final decision is in the possession of all the essential information required –

collected in the previous phases – to make a thoughtful and balanced decision. However, his/her

mindset towards innovation is crucial to the decision. Certain factors can influence this mindset,

namely the organization’s priorities and the age of employees working at the organization (as

illustrated in the innovation decision figure).

A. Priorities–Mindsettowardsinnovations

Possible changes in the organization’s priorities can trigger a shift in expectations within the

organization, by that requiring a change in mindset of the employees towards innovation. An

illustrative example – build on data from the interviews – is provided to clarify the previous

statement. For instance, suppose a sports organization makes the decision to reduce the coaching

staff from three to two assistant-coaches. The main challenge the organization faces now will be

the lessened manpower. The organization’s priority thus shifts to a concern of managing its

employees’ time, indirectly linked with the employees’ work efficiency. Assume the money saved

by employing one individual less is invested in the adoption of an innovation that eases the

49

workload for the two remaining assistant-coaches by increasing the work efficiency of certain

tasks. It could be the case that at first those employees were not that eager to work with the

innovation or had a feeling it was not necessary, however due to the shift in priorities, a change in

mindset toward the proposed innovation will be required. This purely hypothetical illustration is

improvised based on data retrieved from the interviews about the current mindset towards

innovations of a team.

Quote I.3b: I always have to implement a video, then I have to cut it in pieces, and OK this

way of working is not expensive, Moviemaker costs nothing but it costs a lot of time. And

OK, I still have 5 or 6 days to prepare a game but they [NBA] only have 1 or 2 days … I

can still afford to do it this way

B. Age–Mindsettowardsinnovations

An organization’s innovativeness is affected by a number of factors, and the organization’s

employee is one of them. One of the items mentioned during the interviews that had to do with the

people working in a sports organization was age. Age was linked with the ability to bring new

thoughts into a club and pick interesting innovative ideas from other sports. The mindset of an

employee towards innovations may thus be influenced by the employees’ age.

Quote I.3d: And those are all young coaches, I think that is important, to integrate new

thoughts and to collect new ideas from other sports

Likewise, the relationship with an employee’s competences and skillset to work with technology

was discussed.

Quote I.3a: We also employ very young coaches; in the past this was different. If you have

coaches of an elder age, then this can sometimes be challenging since sometimes those

people can be a bit computer-averse

A cautious statement thus was made that younger blood could perform better in these two

previously mentioned phenomena. Nonetheless, no prove was found to substantiate a causal

relationship between age of employees and their innovativeness within the firm. The only

conclusion that can be made here – based on the data – is the fact that there tends to be a belief

that younger employees can create a more acceptable atmosphere for innovations. Given the fact

that the person in charge of the final decision of adoption is also considered an employee, this

reasoning also applies to the end decision maker.

50

Now that all observations of influences have been structured in accordance with the three phases

of the innovation-decision process, it came to my attention that the influencer ‘Priorities’ can also

be impacted on its turn.

C. Pressuretobeinnovative–Priorities

To be innovative is about introducing or employing new ideas, methods and/or habits in the daily

routine of the organization. For this specific setting, it refers to a basketball organization being

original and creative in its thinking in comparison with former times. When analyzing the data, it

came to my attention that pressure originating from society to be innovative – in comparison with

social media - is far less existent. Therefore, no changes in the current priorities of a basketball

organization are triggered, the current priorities are generally not focused towards innovativeness.

For this reason, the sub concept ‘pressure to be innovative’ has no connection with ‘priorities of a

basketball organization’ in the theoretical framework (Figure 10) and indicated with a lighter

accentuation in the innovation decision process (Figure 11). The reason why I mention this non-

existing link is to indicate what influence it could have when existent. Consider the situation in

which pressure from society to be innovative would be present, then this could influence the sports

organization’s priorities and thus indirectly the mindset towards innovations as well. Given the

fact that the mindset towards innovation is fundamental for the final adoption decision, pressure

to be innovative has thus the ability to affect the Decision phase of the innovation-decision process.

3.3 Research question 3

What is the future vision of Belgian basketball teams regarding the use of innovative technologies?

When the question was asked what the interviewee’s thoughts were on the future of Belgian

basketball, they all answered in terms of professionalism. Based on the data obtained by the

qualitative interviews, a category Drivers for Professionalism was created that groups the future

vision of Belgian basketball with regard to its innovativeness. This category is composed of three

main concepts namely Media Attention, Marketing and Product creation. In the next paragraphs,

these concepts are individually discussed, as well as their interconnections.

51

3.3.1 Media attention

This concept covers the attention basketball receives from the public, mainly through airtime on

television. The media attention basketball currently receives is perceived by all interviewees as

rather moderate to even insignificant. Each and every one of the interviewees stated that major

improvements could be made on this issue.

A. SportsCulture–Mediaattention

Some factors were identified that could possibly hinder the media attention for basketball to

develop. I combined them to a common denominator, which coincides with the concept Sports

Culture in Societal Characteristics. Firstly, it was often cited that the Belgian sports culture is not

as pronounced and vivid as for instance the sports culture in countries like France and Germany.

Quote II.2a: We do not have a strongly rooted basketball culture or a real sports culture

here in Belgium. If I compare this with my 2,5 to 3,5 years of experience in Germany, then

there is a huge difference

Additionally, our sports culture is mainly dominated by cycle racing and football, leaving less

space for basketball. A possible reason for this could be – next to historical developments and

considerations – the relatively difficult rules applied in basketball games.

Quote IV.2b: Do you know what I think is difficult for media attention? … if you watch

basketball and you don’t know the sport, it is difficult to understand the movements of the

referee, why it is a fault or why only 1 point was made. I think that is very difficult for

someone with no knowledge of the rules of basketball

Commonly, it is not easy for a non-basketball player to fully comprehend the course of the game.

However, no clear declaration can be made with regard to its influence on media attention; the

lack of a proper understanding of the rules of a basketball game could cause the media to hold

back on broadcasting basketball, or the lack in understanding could be a result of the meager media

attention for basketball. Media Attention and Sports Culture are thus interconnected, with no

explicit direction specified.

B. Budget–Mediaattention

According to the interviewees, media attention has a huge impact on the professionalism of

basketball due to its direct link with the basketball organization’s budget. Their reasoning is as

follows: an increase in media attention goes hand in hand with an increase in public notice. This,

52

on its turn, makes investing in basketball for third parties more attractive. Since budget in a

basketball organization is predetermined by membership fees from youth players and

supplemented by sponsorship fees, a boost in funds provided by sponsoring can increase this last

fraction and thus augment the total team’s available budget. Media attention can fill the moneybag

in a second way, more specifically by selling TV-rights.

Quote IV.a: The basketball in France for instance, TV-rights for five years there are worth

€50 million, so €10 million a year. That’s just great, but they can thus offer a product. We

do not yet have a product (p38)

Huge amounts of money can be earned through this medium, as illustrated for the French

basketball sector in the previous quote. However, an important aspect is mentioned here that serves

as an essential condition for it to work: there should be a product. This brings us to the next

concept, namely Product Development.

3.3.2 Product Development

As mentioned above, it appears that the product ‘Belgian basketball’ is an important determinant

for the extent to which basketball is covered in the media. There tends to live a general notion

among the interviewees that the current result created by basketball not even cuts close to a

qualified end-product. The objective of all basketball organizations is to increase the media

attention of basketball, and a first step that should be taken to achieve this is the creation of a real

product.

Quote IV.b: Why is it those Liga’s are rich? They have TV-rights, lots of TV-rights. And

why is that? Because they can offer a nice product and because the demand to see this nice

product on TV is big, thus a lot of customers. That’s why they can sell their TV-rights for

a huge amount of money

The question was then asked what possible factors could influence this product development

process; two determinants were identified namely Quality Delivery and Regulation.

A. QualityDelivery

In order to be able to deliver a product that could satisfy the customer, a high standard of delivered

quality should be ensured.

A first main determinant for quality delivery is the value of the assets, here in this case assets refers

to basketball players competing in Belgian competition. This serves as the primary element on

53

which quality can be established. A competition in which players are of high value generally

delivers a high level of basketball.

Quote IV.1d: We have to, by all means, make sure the level of our competition is kept, thus

not allowing it to go down

One way of broadening the base for talented basketball players is by investing in youth

development. Some differences in opinion where found amongst the interviewees; a part believed

the investment in youth was already at an acceptable standard, whereas others believed sizable

room for improvement still exists.

Quote IV.1a: I’m positive about the future of Belgian basketball, but then more teams have

to invest in youth, this is very important and is done too little at present (p5)

However, both sides are of the same mind when it comes to the importance of the quality of youth.

A second determinant that contributes to the quality delivered is the setting in which the happening

and experience takes place. For this, I refer to the current infrastructure of a basketball

organization. As reported by some interviewees, the current infrastructure of Belgian basketball in

general is just not good enough. Some of the gyms of certain teams meet the standards, however

a big part has to work with limited means.

Quote IV.c: So yes, I can imagine people saying that not every gym is as beautiful on

television, but we do our best to frame it in such a way it seems better

There is a general belief that the quality of infrastructure should improve in pursuance of

improving the product ‘Belgian basketball’, by that elevating the overall professionalism.

Quote IV.1b: I also think that the focus should be more on working towards media

attention, more basketball on TV, this is going to be crucial, but then quality should be

offered and one can only deliver quality from the moment the infrastructure is on point

One way of improving the quality of infrastructure could be by demanding every basketball team

operative at top level to be in the possession of a perfectly equipped basketball arena. This

approach has been introduced in the past in Germany.

Quote IV.c: I remember how they started in Germany, 10 to 15 years ago, by building

everything back from the ground …

Although proven its effectivity in Germany, this legislative measure would miss its purpose for

Belgian top-level basketball. The argumentation why is because part of the teams operative at top-

level Belgian basketball would not be able to meet the stricter requirements, mainly because of

54

budgetary reasons. And since no other teams coming from lower level competitions are able to fill

in the open spots, the number of teams in competition would diminish, an undesired result.

Quote IV.d: I did not mention the infrastructure on purpose. In France and Germany, there

are also rules with regard to infrastructure, for instance every club is obligated to have a

gym with a minimum of x number of seats, this is just not possible in Belgium. And why is

this possible in France? Because firstly there are more basketball teams and secondly, for

every team that does not meet the requirements, five new teams are ready to take their

place

Given that making adjustments in the current infrastructure is challenging, one can conclude

infrastructure to act as a bottleneck (as indicated on the theoretical framework); the current

infrastructure thus obstructs professionalism in Belgian basketball.

Alternative approaches were suggested by the interviewees to improve the infrastructure in

pursuance of a higher quality delivery for Belgian basketball. The suggestions were mainly

focused on the establishment of a high degree of uniformity. Again, the interviewees were inspired

by German and French competition to form their ideas and make suggestions on how things should

be done in Belgium as well.

Quote IV.1c: In Germany, every club was obligated to have the same LED-scoreboards,

creating uniformity and based on that, a nice product could be created

According to the interviewees, simple steps could be taken to create an overall uniformity, for

instance by introducing consistency in the jerseys of the different teams. Examples of this can be

explicitly specifying the place, size and number of sponsors that can be allowed on a jersey, or

obligating the teams to have the player’s last name on the back of the jersey. Uniformity can also

be created in the framework surrounding the basketball game, for instance by stipulating the same

scoreboards used or the number of stickers allowed and their position on the basketball court. This

creates consistency over the different teams for the supporter and thus attributes to the product

development.

B. Regulation

Product development is thus an essential parameter that should be improved in order to increase

the organization’s financial capacity through augmented media attention, ultimately raising

Belgian basketball to a higher level in the near future. A product can only be delivered when

adequate quality is guaranteed. Propositions were made by interviewees to increase the delivered

55

quality; some feasible, others (currently) impractical. But how come these realistic and doable

propositions have not yet brought forth the desired result of increased quality? A plausible reason

put forward during the interviews was the absence of mandatory directives coming from a

regulating entity.

Quote IV.e: If the League says: “name there, stickers there, there and there, that size … “,

is this difficult? I don’t think so. And slowly, we could start talking about a product. And

every club and the League should be thinking about TV-rights, that should be a goal for

every club

In Belgium, this task is part of the responsibility of the EuroMillions Basketball League; for the

sake of simplicity, I will term this the League. There tends to be a belief among the interviewees

that regulation should, to a greater extend, encourage the transition towards the achievement of a

higher quality competition in the near future.

Quote IV.f: But the requirements of the League towards the clubs in the recent years have

gone down more and more, and in a country such as Germany, those requirements have

continued to go up

Today, certain rules have already been implemented by the League with the unique purpose of

creating uniformity and delivering a refined product. For instance, all clubs are obligated to present

a floor specifically for basketball on game days. Given that the majority of teams play in a public

gym and can thus be used for other sports as well, in most cases additional lines are present on the

floor. Through the opposed rule, the teams in question are thus obligated to tape away all non-

basketball lines, or lay a special floor on top of the existing one by means of a click-system of

pieces of floor. Fines are given in case of inadequate compliance. A second example can be given

that illustrates how the League deals with investments in youth to guarantee quality of the assets;

there is one club in the competition that is obligated to pay yearly fines to the League because they

do not have youth teams in their organization, solely a top-level professional team. Regulative

initiatives thus play a supportive role in the development of an attractive product based on

uniformity and quality of the assets.

Product development thus tends to contribute to a great extent to the professionalization of Belgian

basketball and has some interesting connections with other concepts.

56

3.3.3 Marketing

The final concept that could also be seen as a driver for Belgian professionalism is the marketing

of Belgian basketball. The main purpose of marketing is to offer something that is of value to a

customer and to enlarge the audience. In this specific case, the offering relates to the product

‘Belgian basketball’ and the customer corresponds with enthusiastic followers of basketball. It is

clear that this concept is strongly influenced by the previously discussed driver for

professionalism, namely product development. With no pleasing or valued product to offer, it

becomes difficult to excite people to discover more about the product. Therefore, a properly

developed product is vital in marketing for it to succeed. In line with this, one can remark that the

advertisement of basketball benefits from the good performance of Belgium’s national team, both

men and women. It appears that the received attention goes up when performance goes up, a logical

consequence. According to the interviewees, marketing efforts to promote basketball now stand at

a low level. In the near future, a thoughtful and effective marketing strategy should be elaborated

in order to pursue higher media coverage objectives. By putting a thoughtful marketing strategy

into effect, the general public’s awareness for basketball will develop and demand for it will

increase, resulting in a beneficial impact on basketball’s media attention. On the other hand – in

case of increased media coverage for basketball – the marketing of Belgian basketball indirectly

increases as well. So, there exists a close interconnection between marketing and media attention

of Belgian basketball, both important influencers for professionalism. Again, some suggestions

were made during the interviews to raise marketing efforts for Belgian basketball, for instance by

organizing more attractive events such as ‘Night of the Giants’ or ‘The Game’. Both have proven

to be successful in the past and should thus serve as an example for future initiatives.

Quote IV.3c: I’m no economist but I think … a lot of air time, attractive events like ‘Night

of the Giants’ where they try to fill the Sportpaleis, team Brussels that plays ‘The Game’

at Vorst National…

Another suggestion was made to create an anthem inherently linked with top-level basketball in

Belgium, similar to the melody used in the Jupiler Pro League. The idea is that when people hear

the anthem, they can directly make the association with Belgian basketball, thus increasing the

public notice.

Basketball, like any other sport, can be seen as a way of entertaining people, and the overall feeling

now is that basketball organizations should act more on this entertainment aspect.

57

Discussion

In this section, a profound analysis of the findings will be provided with comparisons made to the

existing literature. The structure of the discussion will be in accordance with the three research

questions. This section will terminate with the limitations inherently linked with this research and

suggestions are made for future research.

1. Analysis per research question

1.1 The Innovation-Decision Process

In trying to provide a comprehensive answer to the first research question, different aspects came

to light that could be conceptualized into separate phases, namely the Proposition, Evaluation and

Decision Phase. The resulting process covered the series of actions a basketball organization

handles in the decision to adopt an innovation. Rogers (2003) has studied this innovation-decision

process in detail and deduced five distinct steps namely knowledge, persuasion, decision,

implementation and confirmation. Although unequal in name, considerable similarities can be

identified between the steps defined in Rogers’ work and the phases pointed out by these research

findings. Through an in-depth study of the innovation-decision process described by Rogers (see

Literature Study) and insights gained by thoroughly analyzing the data, comparisons could be

made between the two processes. It can be suggested that the Proposition Phase coincides with

Rogers’ knowledge stage, along with the Evaluation Phase to correspond with persuasion and

furthermore the Decision Phase with decision. For extensive clarification on the content of the

different steps, I refer to the section Literature Study for Rogers’ point of view and the findings to

Research Question 1 for a basketball organization’s decision process. One can note that the

implementation and confirmation step of Rogers have not been named, the reason for this lies in

the simple fact that no observations were made during the interviews related to these steps. Even

though absent in this research setting, no statements can be made with regard to the existence of

the implementation and confirmation step in the innovation-decision process for basketball

organizations.

Proposition phase

During the profound analyses of the data concerning the possible ways for innovations to reach

the sports organization, it appeared that the dominating approaches were suggestions for

58

innovation made out of personal experience (internally) and propositions coming from an

acquaintance (externally).

Internal

As mentioned in the findings section, the extent to which people within a basketball organization

actively engage in the search for possible technological innovations is minimal. Some efforts are

put into the observation of foreign basketball teams for inspirational purposes. Rogers (2003)

confirms that the evaluation of potential innovations happens for most individuals through the

subjective judgment of near pears who already have adopted the innovation. Near peers in the

basketball segment can thus serve as a role model, nevertheless this rests at a minimum. Hoeber

and Hoeber (2012) suggest that organizations need to actively scan the environment to gather

knowledge that could give advice to initiate innovations. This however, is not the case for Belgian

basketball organizations and could potentially result in valuable opportunities to be missed.

A second finding that came to light during the data analyses was the fact that an interplay between

universities and sports organizations proved to be an effective medium through which

technological innovations could be introduced in the basketball sector. This finding is in line with

the view that linking knowledge obtained from sport organizations and elite athletes with the sports

technology industry and researchers can augment the value proposition of technological

innovation (Ringuet-Riot, Hahn, & James, 2013). This, on its turn, fosters innovation and promotes

the diffusion of new ideas.

External

Suggestions for technological innovations made by a personal contact clearly seem to not miss

their purpose; high efficacy for that one specific technological innovation (Keemotion) was

witnessed and proven. These findings support the existence of a change agent (Rogers, 2003) and

are in line with the view of Sahin (2006) that a change agent may be effectual in increasing the

predictability of an innovation’s rate of adoption. Additionally, evidence was found that a change

agent’s position strengthens through intensified social participation. By virtue of the years of

experience Mr. X had had in Belgian basketball plus his active engagement in contacting clients,

Mr. X was able to convince five out of the six teams interviewed to implement the technological

innovation.

An additional finding was that an interplay between a sports organization and a university serves

as a highly valuable connection between two entities through which technological innovations

59

could find their way to the basketball sector. Although proven to service a mutually beneficial

relationship, this opportunity is currently underexploited by basketball organizations.

Both these findings confirm the importance of diffusing knowledge and information across

organizational boundaries (Van de Ven, 1986). This mechanism of knowledge and information

diffusion relies on a system that supports horizontal interaction among different organizations,

referred to as inter-organizational networks (Porter, 1990; Hage, 1984). Newell & Clark (1990)

emphasize on the importance of these social interactions to allow the exchange of knowledge and

resources to encourage innovation. The assumption is made that the higher the number of inter-

organizational networks an organization is active in, the greater the probability of it to develop an

adaptive organization for introducing innovations (Newell & Swan, 1995).

Evaluation phase

Usefulness

Interestingly, the cases provided insight into the aspects on which an innovation is evaluated by

basketball organizations. The recurring elements with regard to the usefulness of an innovation

found in the interviews were added value, ease of use and instant feedback. Specifically, these

elements point to the attributes of innovations defined by Rogers namely relative advantage,

compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. Added value can be categorized under

relative advantage, whereas ease of use relates to the compatibility and complexity of an

innovation and finally instant feedback can be grouped under relative advantage and observability.

I refer to the section Literature Study for a thorough explanation on the attributes’ significations.

A careful statement can be made based on the data obtained by the interviews that innovations

answering to these elements above have a higher probability of being implemented in a basketball

organization.

Feasibility

In the process of discovering how a decision concerning innovations is made in a basketball

organization, it came to light that an innovation is not only evaluated on its promising utility, but

also assessed on the feasibility of its adoption. The latter implies that the required resources are on

hand and the current infrastructure is adequate. Budget deficiency has proven to be a deterrent for

the adoption of innovations in basketball organizations, and the current infrastructure may be

restricting in some cases. Extant research confirms organizational capacity – defined as human,

60

infrastructure-related and partnership resources – to act as an important factor that influences the

ability to innovate (Hall, et al., 2003). Hoeber & Hoeber (2003) substantiate this phenomenon by

stating it is plausible to presume innovations to be difficult to pursue in a context characterized by

limited organizational capacity. Given that basketball organizations are often confronted with

bound feasibility due to limited resources and/or restricting infrastructure, organizational capacity

may be a deterrent to innovation.

Decision phase

No prove was found in the data analyses to substantiate a finding in literature stating that history

and tradition in a sport organization serves as an impediment for innovative thinking (Smith &

Shilbury, 2004; Thiel & Mayer, 2009). Research on organizational culture suggests that an

organization characterized by a culture where history, tradition and conventional wisdom are

cornerstones – in comparison with risk taking, openness to change and forward thinking –, may

not be as accessible and responsive to innovations. Sport clubs and leagues can be affiliated with

this organizational culture (Smith & Shilbury, 2004; Thiel & Mayer, 2009; Wolfe, Wright, &

Smart, 2006). However, no evidence was found in the cases to support this statement, it merely

suggested that the organizational culture allowed innovation but mainly due to limited resources,

not many innovations came through. No statement can thus be made to indicate the organizational

culture of basketball clubs to be a deterrent or assistance to innovations.

In literature, a lot of manifestation can be found that advocates the influence of personal

characteristics of managers on the innovation process (Berry, Berry, & Foste, 1998; Damanpour

& Schneider, 2006). For instance, Jaskyte (2004) discovered that managerial characteristics of

forward thinking, risk taking and challenging the current situation are supportive characteristics

for the innovation process. However, not one single interviewee mentioned managerial

characteristics to be of importance for the decisions made with regard to technological innovations.

Important to note is that no explicit questions were included in the interview protocol that covered

managerial characteristics, thereby no statements can be for this research with regard to that topic.

1.2 Influencing factors of the Innovation-Decision Process

Pressure to be innovative

As already has been mentioned several times throughout the findings, it was clear that not one

basketball organization interviewed had witnessed some form of pressure originating from society

61

to be innovative. This finding is in contrast with research performed by Hoeber and Hoeber (2012)

in which they state that pressures to be innovate are certainly present within the context of

Community Sports Organizations (CSO’s). Similarities can be identified between CSO’s and a

basketball organization, backing the comparison between the two concepts to be valid. For

instance, they both work out of a nonprofit point of view, rely heavily on volunteers for the running

of things, … The importance of environmental pressure to act as an important potential factor in

stimulating significant change is supported in literature (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Gersick,

1991).

Pressure for social media

Although, for this research, basketball organization state they do not experience any pressure to

be innovative, they do however acknowledge pressure to engage more actively on social media

platforms. There was a general tendency noticed by every single interviewee that requirements to

be active on social media have gone up. Important to note is that it concerns a recent development,

set in motion one to (maximum) two years ago. Studies in the past have shown that sport

organizations were not able to benefit from websites as strategic, interactive stakeholder

engagement tools back then, perhaps due to the lack of know-how or employees to build more

interactive websites for their fans (Kent, Taylor, & White, 2003; Saxton, Guo, & Brown, 2007).

The emergence of Facebook and other social media sites have taken away this excuse given that

they are offered for free and require a limited skillset and staff (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012). Based

on the case analysis, it is posited that a connection between a basketball organization’s budget and

pressure from society to be actively engaged on social media exists. Newall and Swan (1995)

argued that sport organizations need to innovate to obtain scarce resources, however they do not

explicitly mention the sport organization to be innovate in its social media strategy. Little evidence

has been found in literature about the impact of social media on innovation for the simple reason

that the matter covers a very recent tendency and has not yet been discussed extensively in

literature. Nonetheless, information was found in articles covering the topic. It has been stated that

new communication channels can be opened up via social media, which can be measured and

valued as a new commercial opportunity with sponsors (Cave & Miller, 2015). The big challenge

however is to find ways to measure the value social media can offer, as illustrated by the following

quote: “increasingly we are building social media benefits into sponsorship contracts but it’s a

mistake to measure it in a narrow vertical, saying that you have spent so much on Twitter and

asking what you’re getting back for that” (Cave & Miller, 2015). This supports the view that a

62

basketball organization can, by investing more in social media, create a closer affinity with its

supporter base and use this as leverage for better negotiation terms with possible sponsors.

Evidence can thus be found that backs the existence of a connection between pressure for social

media and budget in a basketball organization; a sports organization should innovate in its social

media strategy in order to secure scarce, monetary funds.

Age

A finding during the analysis of the data was that there tends to be a belief among the interviewees

that the mindset of an employee towards innovations may be influenced by the his/her age.

Likewise, the notion existed that the competences and skillset of an employee to work with

technology is related to age. The belief that age – specifically a younger age – could be a

determinant of technological innovation has already been hypothesized in literature, in which the

assumption was made that younger managers are receptive to new ideas and are comfortable with

computer technology (Berry, Berry, & Foste, 1998). However, no evidence was found in their

study to back the hypothesis that younger managers would be more likely to use technological

innovations. The same can be said for this research and is thus completely in line with literature;

no prove was found to substantiate a causal relationship between age of employees and their

innovativeness. Age thus cannot be labeled as a requirement or constraint for innovation in sports

organizations, at most it can be marked a facilitator to move the culture to a more innovative one

and encourage the adoption of innovations.

Inter-organizational relationships

As mentioned in the findings section, the interplay between universities and sport organizations

proved to be an effective medium to introduce technological innovation into the basketball sector,

mainly due to the mutually beneficial relationship that can be build. Jaskyte & Lee (2006) suggest

that involved and interested external parties can contribute to the overall innovation process, thus

not only to the proposition stage. The access to technical consulting provided by an interested third

party may serve as a significant addition for basketball organization in pursuing technological

innovations. At the time of the interviews, there was one case actively engaged in an interplay with

a third party (university), and two cases that were in close contact but had no specific projects

going on. Through the inter-organizational relationship, the former was able to make use of a state-

of-the-art technological innovation. Not only this team was granted access to specific IT

knowledge and skills, no additional resources – budget and personnel – were required for it to be

implemented. The risks associated with implementation were thus completely eliminated and

63

beard by the interconnection. Reference can be made here to the fourth attribute of an innovation,

namely trialability (Rogers, 2003). To quickly recapitulate, trialability refers to “the degree to

which an innovation may be experimented with on a limited basis”. An alliance with a university

can thus make it possible for a basketball organization to first test the technological innovation

and identify possible advantages before fully committing.

No statements can be made for the two other cases given that their inter-organizational relationship

with a university was – at the time of the interview – inoperative. Evidence could thus be found to

support that involved and interested third parties can contribute to the innovation process in

basketball organizations.

1.3 Future vision

The last research question had the objective to sound out the opinions of what the future of Belgian

basketball with regard to technological innovations will look like. In the process of trying to

provide a comprehensive answer to the previous research questions, much of the data has been

processed and some resulting facts came into view that relate to the status quo. It can be stated

with significant credence that the resource ‘budget’ currently plays a highly important role in the

innovation decision process of a sports organization. Given that this same factor happens to be a

critical bottleneck in the organization at present again proves its importance. The general belief

was that Belgian basketball should become more professional so that the amount of technological

innovations in the sector could increase. The gateway that is positioned in between innovation and

professionalism leads back to the organization’s budget. It appears that the factor budget acts as

the main restraint for the basketball sector to become more innovative. By increasing its level of

professionalism, this hindering factor can be narrowed down. Potential drivers to increase the level

of professionalism were categorized into three concepts – media attention, marketing and product

development – all of which have interrelations with one another.

The case evidence suggested that regulative initiatives originating from the League should play a

supportive role in the development of an attractive product. The ultimate future vision is to raise

Belgian basketball to a higher level in the near future by augmenting media attention through

which financial capacity can grow. Indeed, the innovations literature highlights the role of key

agencies to promote the diffusion on innovation (Greenwood & Hinings, 1988). For instance, a

specific recording device is required so that one may participate in the European Basketball

64

competition. This rule originates from the FIBA – acting as key agency – pushing technological

innovations to be implemented so that European basketball may become more professional.

The end goal is to eliminate the impeding budget factor and increase professionalism.

2. Limitations and Further Research

As for all research, this research has limitations that provide opportunities for future research. In

this paragraph, the limitations inherently linked with the research are summed up, as well as

suggestions for further research directions.

First, to obtain rich insights on innovation within sport organizations, literature was searched on

this topic. However, little was found that could serve as a reference for this research. On the other

hand, ample information could be found on innovation within the business context and nonprofit

organizations, which covers a more general area. The broad outline of innovation within

organizations has been applied in this research setting for sport organizations as well. One cannot

state with certainty that this literature is valid for basketball organizations.

Secondly, the aim of this research was to investigate the use of technological innovations in

basketball. In the course of the research, not more than three technologies could be identified.

Given this result, focus of the research was more on the apprehension why the adoption of

technological innovations stands at low level at present. It could be relevant to work with one

specific technological innovation and use it to perform pilot tests within basketball organizations.

In a later stage, the comparison can then be made between the attitude towards the innovation

before the pilot test and after. This could clarify the innovation-decision more in detail, detect

possible influencing factors not yet discovered and examine the impact of pilot testing on

innovation. Additionally, one could assume this research to be performed too soon. From the

moment more innovations have found their way into the basketball sector in the near future,

research can be performed on the actual use of these innovations and provide more insights in

innovation within basketball organizations.

Third, the study focus was on top-level men basketball in Belgium. Given that six out of the ten

teams occupied in the competition were observed, one can state that – to some extent –

generalization is achieved. However, to fully cover Belgian basketball in total, further research

65

should be done on a research setting where lower level basketball and both women and youth are

included as well.

Fourth, the research was performed by doing in-depth interviews with the main decision makers

within the basketball organizations. Therefore, the result can be biased and of a unilateral nature.

The information should be checked with other stakeholders of the organization to obtain an

unprejudiced version.

Fifth, the research did not cover innovations that were rejected after previous implementation, only

innovations that were to be adopted or were already in implementation are studied here. It would

be relevant to examine the determinants for discontinuance, by that exploring possible dimensions

not were not yet identified.

3. Conclusion

This research is able to define the different steps a basketball organization follows when

confronted with a decision that concerns a technological innovation. Additionally, various factors

that influence the building blocks of these steps are identified. Budget deficiency has proven to be

the main deterrent for the adoption of innovations in basketball organizations and the current

organizational capacity may be restricting in some cases as well. Given the lack of environmental

pressure to stimulate innovative changes and the lack of media attention to increase financial

capacity, it seems that the level of innovativeness within basketball organizations will remain

unchanged for the near future. The general future vision targets an increased level of

professionalism in Belgian basketball. However, the prerequisite of the existence of a finished

product ‘Belgian Basketball’ should first be fulfilled and regulative initiatives from the League

can play a supportive role in this development. Overall, these insights add to the so far limited

research on how basketball organizations deal with technological innovations and open up

pathways for future research.

VII

References

Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. (1978). Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology review,

80(7), 40-47.

Adair, D., & Vamplew, W. (1997). Sport in Australian history. In D. Adair, & W. Vamplew, Sport

in Australian history. Australia: Oxford University Press.

Bansal, V., Manhas, J. S., & Dangi, K. L. (2004, February). Most credible information sources for

disseminating improved technology of mustard among farmers. National Workshop on

Communication Support for Sustaining Extension Services, 17-18.

Berry, F. S., Berry, W. D., & Foste, S. K. (1998). The determinants of success in implementing an

expert system in state government. Public Administration Review, 293-305.

Bolwijn, P. T., & Kumpe, T. (1990). Manufacturing in the 1990s—productivity, flexibility and

innovation. Long range planning, 23(4), 44-57.

Bowen, G. A. (2006). Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts . International Journal of

Qualitative Methods, 5(3), 12-23.

Bradley, E. H., Curry, L. A., & Devers, a. K. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services

research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health services research, 42(4), 1758-

1772.

Cave, A., & Miller, A. (2015, June 23). The importance of social media in sport. The Telegraph.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2010). Australian Sport, The Pathway to Success. Canberra,

Australia: Australian Sports Commission.

Corbin, J., & Anselm, S. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. In J. Corbin, & S. Anselm,

Handbook of qualitative research (Vol. 17, pp. 273-285). Hagen: FernUniversität.

Daft, R. L. (1978). A dual-core model of organizational innovation. Academy of management

journal, 21(2), 193-210.

Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations:

Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of

Management(17), 215–236.

DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Collective rationality and

institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2),

147-160.

VIII

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management

review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and

challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.

Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated

equilibrium paradigm. Academy of management review, 16(1), 10-36.

Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological

Theory(1), 201-233.

Green, M., & Houlihan, B. (2005). Elite Sport Development: Policy Learning and Political

Priorities. In M. Green, & B. Houlihan, Elite Sport Development: Policy Learning and

Political Priorities. New York: Routledge.

Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1988). Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of

strategic change. Organization studies, 9(3), 293-316.

Hage, J. (1984). Organizational theory and the concept of productivity. Productivity research in

the behavioral and social sciences, 91-126.

Hall, M. H., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., Embuldeniya, D., & ... & Stowe, S. (2003). The

capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s nonprofit and

voluntary organizations. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Harris, S. G., & Sutton, R. I. (1986). Functions of parting ceremonies in dying organizations.

Academy of Management journal, 29(1), 5-30.

Investopedia. (s.d.). Engel's Law: Investopedia. Retrieved from Investopedia:

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/engels-law.asp

Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C., & W. Valente, T. (2011). Opinion leadership and social contagion

in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, 30(2), 195-212.

Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1992). Specific and general knowledge and organizational

structure.

Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between Web site design and

organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public relations review, 29(1), 63-77.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. In Y. S. Lincoln, & E. G. Guba,

Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.

Lockwood, D. (1956, June). Some Remarks on "The Social System". The British Journal of

Sociology, 134-146.

IX

Lovejoy, K., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Information, community, and action: How nonprofit

organizations use social media. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(3),

337-353.

Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Bass, F. M. (1993). Handbooks in Operations Research and

Management Science Volume 5. North Holland: Elsevier B.V.

Mahajan, V., Muller, E., & Srivastava, R. K. (1990, February). Determination of Adopter

Categories by Using Innovation Diffusion Models. Journal of Marketing Research , 37-

50.

Mansfield, E. (1968). Industrial Research and Technological Innovation. An Econometric

Analysis. Yale University, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics. New York:

Norton.

Mortelmans, D. (2013). Handboek kwalitatieve onderzoeksmethoden. Leuven: Acco.

Newell, S., & Swan, J. (1995). The Diffusion of Innovations in Sport Organizations: An Evaluative

Framework. Journal of Sport Management, 317-337.

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press.

Ringuet-Riot, C., Hahn, J. A., & James, D. A. (2013). A structured approach for technology

innovation in sport. Sports Technology, 6(3), 137-149.

Robinson, L. (2009). Changeology. Retrieved from Enabling Change:

https://www.enablingchange.com.au/Summary_Diffusion_Theory.pdf

Rogers, E. M. (2002). Diffusion of preventive innovations. In E. M. Rogers, & E. M. Rogers (Ed.),

Addictive behaviors (Vol. 6, pp. 989-993). Elsevier Science Ltd.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). The Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Sahin, I. (2006, April). Detailed Review of Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations Theory and

Educational Technology-Related Studies based on Rogers' Theory. The Turkish Online

Journal of Educational Technology(2), Article 3.

Saxton, G. D., Guo, S. C., & Brown, W. A. (2007). New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness:

The application and promise of Internet-based technologies. Public performance &

management review, 31(2), 144-173.

Schilling, M. A. (2013). Strategic Management of Technological Innovation. In M. A. Schilling,

Strategic Management of Technological Innovation (Fourth Edition ed.). New York: The

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

X

Smith, A. C., & Shilbury, D. (2004). Mapping cultural dimensions in Australian sporting

organisations. Sport Management Review, 7(2), 133-165.

Smith, A. C., & Stewart, B. (2010). The special features of sport: A critical revisit. Sport

Management Review, 13(1), 1-13.

Statista. (2016). Sports and Fitness: Statista. Retrieved from Statista:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/194122/sporting-event-gate-revenue-worldwide-by-

region-since-2004/

Thiel, A., & Mayer, J. (2009). Characteristics of voluntary sports clubs management: A

sociological perspective. European Sport Management Quarterly, 9(1), 81-98.

Utterback, J. M. (1974). Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science,

183(4125), 620-626.

Van Bottenburg, M. (2005). There’s no business like sportbusiness. Tilburg: Fontys Economische

Hogeschool Tilburg.

Van de Ven, A. H. (1986, May). Central Problems in the Management of Innovation. Management

Science(5), 590-607.

Wixted, A. J., Billing, D. C., & James, D. A. (2010). Validation of trunk mounted inertial sensors

for analyzing running biomechanics under field conditions, using synchronously collected

foot contact data. Sports Engineering, 12(4), 207-212.

Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research

directions. Journal of management studies, 31(3), 405-431.

Wolfe, R., Wright, P. M., & Smart, D. L. (2006). Radical HRM innovation and competitive

advantage: The Moneyball story. Human Resource Management, 111–145.

Yocco, V. (2015, January 29). Five Characteristics Of An Innovation. Smashing Magazine.

Yocco, V. (2015, January 21). How To Have Users Spread Your Innovation Like Wildfire.

Smashing Magazine.

Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbeck, J. (). . : . In

Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons.

XI

Appendix Appendix 2.1: The differences between earlier and later adopters ( (Rogers, The Diffusion of

Innovations, 2003)

CHARACTERISTICS COMPARISON EARLIER – LATER

ADOPTERS

Socio-economic status

age =

years of formal education >

literate >

social status >

degree of upward social mobility >

Personality variables

empathy >

Dogmatism <

ability to deal with abstractions >

rationality >

Intelligence >

favorable attitude towards change >

ability to cope with uncertainty and risk >

attitude toward science >

XII

Fatalism <

self-efficacy >

aspirations for formal education >

higher-status occupations >

Communication behavior

social participation >

highly interconnected in the interpersonal

networks of their system

>

Cosmopolite >

contact with change agents >

exposure to mass media channels >

exposure to interpersonal communication

channels

>

engage in active information seeking >

knowledge of innovations >

degree of opinion leadership >

XIII

Appendix 3.1: List of teams playing in Belgian top division

XIV

Appendix 3.2: One-pager

USEOFTECHNOLOGYINELITEBELGIANBASKETBALL:WHY(NOT)?

WHAT?

Theuseoftechnologiessuchasscoutingtools,videofeedbacksystems,trackingtechnologies(GPS,sensororvideobased), smartproducts fore.g. shootingskills,coaching&trainingsoftware,etc. inprofessionalbasketballisdrasticallyincreasing.

WewouldliketoinvestigatehowthesetechnologiesareappliedinBelgianbasketball,andincasetheyarenot,why?ThroughthisMasterthesisproject,wewouldliketogetabetterviewontheopportunitiesforimplementationof existing technologiesordevelopmentofnew technologieswith the final goal tohelpBelgiancoaches,trainers,players,etc.moveforward.

WHATNOT?

Wewillnotfocusondigitalmarketing,fanengagement,etc.Wewon’tasktoomuchoftheparticipant´stime.

HOW?

Weare currentlymapping all basketball specifictechnologies already available on the market(worldwide).Next,wewillinterviewkeypeopleinthefield(BasketBelgium,EuromillionsBasketballLeague,Topsportschools).Then,wewillmakeareportoftheresultswhichwillbesharedwithallstakeholders.

WHEN?

Theinterviewswilltakeplaceinthespring,2017.

WHO?

Louise-Marie Platteau - Master student inBusinessEngineering(Finance),GhentUniversity– former basketball player 1st DivisionKristof De Mey – Sports technology & businessdeveloperatVictoris,GhentUniversity– formerbasketballplayer

CONTACT

Mail:Kristof.demey@UGent.beTel:+32486145737

Mail:louisemarieplatteau@gmail.comTel:+32478338383

XV

Appendix 3.3: Overview of the interview protocol

Wiebenik?Thesisonderwerpuitleggen(onderzoekenvanvoorwaardenvoorimplementatievaninnovatiebinnenbasket)1. Binnenjullieclub,zijnjulliebezigmetinnovatie,ditintraining-enwedstrijdsituaties?Kan

jehiereenconcreetvoorbeeldvangeven?2. Waaromhebjespecifiekvoordegenoemdetechnologieengekozen?+Wiebeslist(hoe

verlooptkeuzeproces,wiebevoegt,wiebeinvloedt,hunachtergrond,watvindtuvandezemaniervanwerken?)

3. Hoebenjeincontactgekomenmetdieinnovatievetechnologieën?4. Benjesomsincontactgekomenmettechnologieëndieweldegelijkmogelijksinteressant

warenendiejenietgeimplementeerdhebt?Waarom?5. Jijhebtvoorgaandetechnologieënaangehaald,maarwatvandeze?(3voorbeelden)

- Skills:slimmebal(94Fifty,ShotTracker,WilsonConnectedBasketball)- Scoutingtoolsdiesamengaanmetvideoentrackingvandespelers- Video

6. Extrabijvragen

- Ervaartudrukominnovatieftezijn?- Kijkenjullievaaknaarandereploegen,zowelbelgischeploegenalsbuitenland?- Komenersomsspelersofcoachesofbedrijvenbijumetideeën?- Hoezietudetoekomstvanhetbelgischbasketbal?- Inhetbezitvaneigenzaal?- Drukomactieftezijnopsocialemedia?- Hoezoumediaaandachtkunnenverhoogdwordenvolgensu?

7. Omopdezelfdegolflengtetezittenenzorgendatikallescorrecthebgeinterpreteerd,

kanjezelfeenskortconcluderenvanwatbelangrijkisrondhetinnovatiegebeuren?Zijnerzakendievolgensunognietaanbodzijngekomenendiejegraagzoutoelichten?

8. Descriptievedata:naam/leeftijd/functie/#jaarbinnenorganisatie/zelfactiefgeweest

inbasket.*bijkomendevragenobvvoorgaandeinterviews

XVI

Appendix 3.4: Result of the open and axial coding steps

CATEGORY CONCEPT QUOTE FROM INTERVIEW

I. ORGANIZATION

CHARACTERISTICS

Available resources

Budget Quote I.1a: Concerning the innovation in

training situation, it is very limited since this

of course is strongly dependent on budget (p1)

Quote I.1c: Firstly, Brian [Head Coach] and

me [Assistant Coach] assess it [the proposed

innovation] and then it’s a matter of budget,

how much it will cost (p21)

Quote I.1d: Every year again, a balance has to

be made in the financial possibilities. In recent

years, the budget has gone down enormously,

forcing us to make reductions on certain areas

within the club. The available technologies,

among other things, is one of those areas (p31)

Personnel

- Time Quote I.1b: eventually, it has to be practically

achievable, we are a professional team but we

do not employ a lot of full-time employees,

it’s all about the logistics (p3)

Quote I.1f: … since they are only two, they are

pretty stuck with their day-to-day tasks. And

if there could come extra’s from the

KULeuven or students where they [the

XVII

coaching staff] must spend little extra time,

they are open to it. (p43)

- Skills Quote I.1e: Firstly, you need people who have

the skills to process it [information generated

technology] and have the time to do so, and

secondly, at the end you have to act on this

information (p32)

Infrastructure

Quote I.2a: we have 27 youth teams and we

practice in 7 different gyms so that’s why

innovation is very difficult because when you

buy something, you have to buy it multiple

times and that’s actually very difficult (p1)

Quote I.2b: We really want a lot of things

[innovations] but this is just not practically

possible, we have a gym but we do not own it

so qua storage capacity and such, it is very

limited (p2)

Culture organization

age coaches Quote I.3a: We also employ very young

coaches; in the past this was different. If you

have coaches of an elder age, then this can

sometimes be challenging since sometimes

those people can be a bit computer-averse (p7)

Quote I.3d: And those are all young coaches,

I think that is important, to integrate new

thoughts and to collect new ideas from other

sports (p45)

XVIII

priorities Quote I.3c: The club allows us to use whatever

technology we desire; they just say ‘then you

will have less budget for your players’. Thus,

it’s always a matter of finding a bit of a

balance (p32)

mindset towards

innovation

Quote I.3b: I always have to implement a

video, then I have to cut it in pieces, and OK

this way of working is not expensive,

Moviemaker costs nothing but it costs a lot of

time. And OK, I still have 5 or 6 days to

prepare a game but they [NBA] only have 1 or

2 days … I can still afford to do it this way

(p22)

II. SOCIETAL

CHARACTERISTICS

Pressure

innovative (low) Quote II.1b: … we have a feeling that it is not

something … You thus experience no pressure

from the society to be innovative? Indeed,

completely not. Because if we were not the

ones looking for things ourselves, then …

(p32)

social media (high) Quote II.1a: Social media is extremely

important. We are on Twitter, Instagram,

Facebook,.. That is Bob’s task, it is really very

important (p27)

Quote II.1c: In my opinion, a good

communication with our fans is of extreme

importance. Without a fan, without a

supporter, who are you? You can just as well

XIX

shut down the place. We should always put the

fan in the spotlight, so that we can attract more

fans (p38)

Sports Culture Quote II.2a: We do not have a strongly rooted

basketball culture or a real sports culture here

in Belgium. If I compare this with my 2,5 to

3,5 years of experience in Germany, then there

is a huge difference (p34)

Quote II.2b: In Belgium I think football and

cycle racing are the two main sports. (p45)

III. SOURCES OF

INNOVATION

Internal

personal experience Quote III.1a: … sometimes also via players,

our Americans they come from the American

competition and are used to other items and

then they suggest ‘hey, but how about this?’

Quote III.1b: Our assistant-coach was always

one of the first in the field of innovation and

every year he travels to the US to those

Summer Leagues where the latest innovations

are shown (p12)

Quote III.1c: in my previous team, they

already used this [technology], I do not know

how they got in contact with it, and here I said

‘look, this is a good technology’. Thus

actually out of my personal experience we

ended up using this technology (p19)

XX

active search Quote III.1d: We do not specifically look for

technologies that could make us better (p31)

External

contact person Quote III.2b: Keemotion was represented by

Mr. X who is an ex-basketball player and

associate of Odell [the Sports Director] (p19)

Quote III.2c: Keemotion is actually, Mr. X is

co-founder, or at least a representative here in

Belgium. He played here at Mons so that’s

how it happened (p31)

university Quote III.2d: We thus got in contact [with this

innovative technology] via the KULeuven,

people from the management have

connections with KULeuven, and that’s how

we ended up there (p41)

e-mail Quote III.2a: we receive a lot of e-mails of

people making us offerings (p3)

IV. DRIVERS FOR

PROFESSIONALISM

Product

Development

quality delivery

- assets Quote IV.1a: I’m positive about the future of

Belgian basketball, but then more teams have

to invest in youth, this is very important and is

done too little at present (p5)

Quote IV.1d: We have to, by all means, make

sure the level of our competition is kept, thus

not allowing it to go down (p16)

XXI

- uniformity Quote IV.1b: I also think that the focus should

be more on working towards media attention,

more basketball on TV, this is going to be

crucial, but then quality should be offered and

one can only deliver quality from the moment

the infrastructure is on point (p5)

Quote IV.1c: In Germany, every club was

obligated to have the same LED-scoreboards,

creating uniformity and based on that, a nice

product could be created (p5)

Quote IV.1f: infrastructure is also a very

important factor in the future of Belgian

basketball (p39)

regulation Quote IV.1e: For example, in France the clubs

are obligated to follow the rules concerning

the place, size and number of sponsors on their

jerseys (p38)

Media attention Quote IV.2a: Without media, one cannot

survive. A good example is cycle racing, why

is cycle racing so popular? First, because a lot

of people cycle in Belgium and second,

because it is broadcasted almost every day on

TV. The same applies for football, even

unimportant games are being broadcasted so I

believe media attention to be very important

for basketball (p24)

XXII

Quote IV.2b: Do you know what I think is

difficult for media attention? … if you watch

basketball and you don’t know the sport, it is

difficult to understand the movements of the

referee, why it is a fault or why only 1 point

was made. I think that is very difficult for

someone with no knowledge of the rules of

basketball (p24)

Marketing Quote IV.3a: I’m of the opinion that we could

do more in cooperation with the League to

develop a product ‘Belgium basketball’. In my

opinion, it is not yet a real product (p38)

Quote IV.3b: let me give a different example,

the song of the Jupiler League. One hears it on

the radio and immediately knows what it is

about. That’s [to do this for basketball as well]

simple, right? (p38)

Quote IV.3c: I’m no economist but I think …

a lot of air time, attractive events like ‘Night

of the Giants’ where they try to fill the

Sportpaleis, team Brussels that plays ‘The

Game’ at Vorst National,… (p45)

XXIII

Appendix 3.5: Translation of the quotes from Dutch to English

Quote I.1a: Wat innovatie binnen training betreft is dit zeer beperkt omdat dit van het budget

afhangt uiteraard (p1)

Quote I.1a: Concerning the innovation in training situation, it is very limited since this of

course is strongly dependent on budget (p1)

Quote I.1b: het moet natuurlijk ook praktisch doenbaar zijn hé, wij zijn een professionele club

maar wij hebben niet veel mensen full-time in dienst, het gaat ook allemaal over het logistieke (p3)

Quote I.1b: eventually, it has to be practically achievable, we are a professional team but

we do not employ a lot of full-time employees, it’s all about the logistics (p3)

Quote I.1c: Dat wordt eerst door mij en Brian bekeken en dan is het meestal een ding van budget,

hoeveel dat het kost (p21)

Quote I.1c: Firstly, Brian [Head Coach] and me [Assistant Coach] assess it [the proposed

innovation] and then it’s a matter of budget, how much it will cost (p21)

Quote I.1d: Maar het is altijd elk jaar een beetje opnieuw een balans gaan maken in de

mogelijkheden wat het financiële betreft. De laatste jaren is het budget enorm naar beneden gegaan

dus dan hebben wij op bepaalde vlakken binnen de club moeten gaan reduceren. En onder andere

komt dat ook terug naar de technologieën die ons ter beschikking staan (p31)

Quote I.1d: Every year again, a balance has to be made in the financial possibilities. In

recent years, the budget has gone down enormously, forcing us to make reductions on

certain areas within the club. The available technologies, among other things, is one of

those areas (p31)

Quote I.1e: En één, je moet de mensen hebben die het kunnen gaan verwerken en er de tijd voor

hebben en twee, je moet er dan ook effectief iets mee gaan doen (p32)

Quote I.1e: Firstly, you need people who have the skills to process it [information generated

technology] and have the time to do so, and secondly, at the end you have to act on this

information (p32)

XXIV

Quote I.1f: … aangezien ze ook maar met 2 zijn, zitten ze vrij vast aan gewoon hun taken. En als

er extra’s kunnen komen vanuit de KULeuven of studenten waar zij weinig extra tijd aan moeten

spenderen, dan staan ze daar wel voor open. (p43)

Quote I.1f: … since they are only two, they are pretty stuck with their day-to-day tasks.

And if there could come extra’s from the KULeuven or students where they [the coaching

staff] must spend little extra time, they are open to it. (p43)

Quote I.2a: we hebben 27 jeugdploegen en we trainen in 7 verschillende zalen dus daarom is

innovatie zeer moeilijk omdat als je iets aankoopt, je dat in een aantal stuks moet aankopen en dat

is niet te doen eigenlijk (p1)

Quote I.2a: we have 27 youth teams en we practice in 7 different gyms so that’s why

innovation is very difficult because when you buy something, you have to buy it multiple

times and that’s actually very difficult (p1)

Quote I.2b: we willen wel veel dingen maar dit is echt niet haalbaar praktisch, we hebben een zaal

maar eigenlijk is ze niet van ons dus qua opberging en zo is dit heel beperkt (p2)

Quote I.2b: We really want a lot of things [innovations] but this is just not practically

possible, we have a gym but we do not own it so qua storage capacity and such, it is very

limited (p2)

Quote I.3a: Wij hebben ook zeer jonge coaches, daarvoor was dat anders geweest. Als je coaches

hebt die ouder zijn, dan is dat soms moeilijk, soms zijn dit mensen die voor de pc een beetje afkerig

staan (p7)

Quote I.3a: We also employ very young coaches, in the past this was different. If you have

coaches of an elder age, then this can sometimes be challenging since sometimes those

people can be a bit computer-averse (p7)

Quote I.3b: Ik moet altijd een video implementeren, ik moet die dan in stukjes knippen, en oké dat

is niet zo duur, dat kost niets uw Moviemaker maar het kost wel veel meer tijd. En oké, ik heb nu

wel 5 à 6 dagen voor een wedstrijd maar zij [NBA] hebben maar 1 à 2 dagen … ik kan het mij nog

veroorloven om het op deze manier te doen (p22)

XXV

Quote I.3b: I always have to implement a video, then I have to cut it in pieces, and OK this

way of working is not expensive, Moviemaker costs nothing but it costs a lot of time. And

OK, I still have 5 or 6 days to prepare a game but they [NBA] only have 1 or 2 days … I

can still afford to do it this way (p22)

Quote I.3c: we mogen van de club massa’s technologieën gaan gebruiken maar dan zeggen zij van

‘ja dan ga je wat minder budget hebben voor uw spelers’. Dus daar is het altijd een beetje een

balans in gaan maken (p32)

Quote I.3c: The club allows us to use whatever technology we desire, they just say ‘then

you will have less budget for your players’. Thus, it’s always a matter of finding a bit of a

balance (p32)

Quote I.3d: En dat zijn allemaal jongere coaches, en ik denk dat dat belangrijk is dat die nieuwe

gedachten er wat meer gaan inkomen en ook dat er ideeën gaan worden opgepikt uit andere sporten

(p45)

Quote I.3d: And those are all young coaches, I think that is important, to integrate new

thoughts and to collect new ideas from other sports (p45)

Quote I.a: Ik beslis als sportief manager erover, en dan de voorzitter als er heel veel geld aan te

pas komt (p2)

Quote I.a: I decide as Sportive Manager, and the President when a lot of money is involved

(p2)

Quote II.1a: Ja dat [social media] is wel uitermate belangrijk. Wij zitten op twitter, instagram,

facebook. Daar houdt Bob zich mee bezig, dat is echt wel superbelangrijk (p27)

Quote II.1a: Social media is extremely important. We are on Twitter, Instagram,

Facebook,.. That is Bob’s task, it is really very important (p27)

Quote II.1b: … wij voelen dat aan dat niet iets is dat … Jullie ervaren dus geen druk van de

samenleving om innovatief te zijn? Nee nee, totaal niet. Want moesten wij zelf niet op zoek gaan

naar zaken, dan … (p32)

XXVI

Quote II.1b: … we have a feeling that it is not something … You thus experience no

pressure from the society to be innovative? Indeed, completely not. Because if we were not

the ones looking for things ourselves, then … (p32)

Quote II.1c: Ik vind dat enorm belangrijk dat we goed met onze fans communiceren. Zonder fan,

zonder toeschouwer, wie ben je dan? Dat kan je de winkel afsluiten, dat trekt op niets dan. Wij

moeten de fan altijd in de belangstelling stellen, zodat we meer fans in de zaal krijgen (p38)

Quote II.1c: In my opinion, a good communication with our fans is of extreme importance.

Without a fan, without a supporter, who are you? You can just as well shut down the place.

We should always put the fan in the spotlight, so that we can attract more fans (p38)

Quote II.2a: We hebben sowieso niet echt een basketbal cultuur of een echte sportcultuur hier in

België. Als ik dat vergelijk met de 2,5-3,5j dat ik in Duitsland heb gezeten, dat is een gigantisch

groot verschil (p34)

Quote II.2a: We do not have a stongly rooted basketball culture or a real sports culture here

in Belgium. If I compare this with my 2,5 to 3,5 years of experience in Germany, then there

is a huge difference (p34)

Quote II.2b: In België is dat vooral denk ik dat de voetbal en wielrennen hier voornamelijk de 2

grootste sporten zijn. (p45)

Quote II.2b: In Belgium I think football and cycle racing are the two main sports. (p45)

Quote III.a: Als het zuiver basket-technisch is, komt dat soms van de coaches die er mee afkomen

of ikzelf zie soms iets … (p2)

Quote III.a: If it is purely basketball technical, at times the proposition originates from

coaches or sometimes I [Team Manager] see things … (p2)

Quote III.1a: … ook soms via spelers, onze Amerikanen die komen uit de States en die zijn andere

dingen gewend dan hier en dan zeggen die van ‘ja waarom dat niet?’ (p3)

XXVII

Quote III.1a: … sometimes also via players, our Americans they come from the American

competion and are used to other items and then they suggest ‘hey, but how about this?’

(p3)

Quote III.1b: Hij [assistent-coach] was altijd een beetje in België een voorloper op dat vlak

[innovatie] en die gaat ook ieder jaar een keer naar de States op zo van die Summer Leagues en

daar wordt ook van alles getoond (p12)

Quote III.1b: Our assistant-coach was always one of the first in the field of innovation and

every year he travels to the US to those Summer Leagues where the latest innovations are

shown (p12)

Quote III.1c: in de tijd van mijn Leuven hadden we dat al dus ik weet niet hoe ze daar in contact

mee gekomen zijn en hier heb ik dat dan gezegd van ‘kijk, dit is een goed systeem’. Dus eigenlijk

uit eigen ervaring dat we daar aan toegekomen zijn (p19)

Quote III.1c: in my previous team, they already used this [technology], I do not know how

they got in contact with it, and here I said ‘look, this is a good technology’. Thus actually

out of my personal experience we ended up using this technology (p19)

Quote III.1d: We gaan niet specifiek op zoek naar technologieën die ons zouden kunnen gaan beter

maken (p31)

Quote III.1d: We do not specifically look for technologies that could make us better (p31)

Quote III.2a: wij krijgen zeer veel mails van mensen die ons voorstellen doen (p3)

Quote III.2a: we receive a lot of e-mails of people making us offerings (p3)

Quote III.2b: Keemotion werd vertegenwoordigd door Sébastien Bellin, dat is een ex

basketbalspeler en die kende Odell [de sportief directeur] en zo is hij zijn uitleg mogen komen

doen (p19).

Quote III.2b: Keemotion was represented by Mr. X who is an ex-basketball player and

associate of Odell [the Sports Director] (p19).

XXVIII

Quote III.2c: Keemotion is eigenlijk, Sébastien Bellin, die is daar medeoprichter van, of toch zeker

vertegenwoordiger hier in België. En hij heeft bij ons gespeeld in Mons dus zo is dat gekomen

(p31)

Quote III.2c: Keemotion is actually, Mr. X is co-founder, or at least a representative here

in Belgium. He played here at Mons so that’s how it happened (p31)

Quote III.2d: We zijn daar [innovatieve technologie] dus in contact mee gekomen via de

KULeuven zelf, dat zijn mensen van het bestuur die connecties hebben met de KULeuven, en zo

zijn ze daarop uitgekomen (p41)

Quote III.2d: We thus got in contact [with this innovative technology] via the KULeuven,

people from the management have connections with KULeuven, and that’s how we ended

up there (p41)

Quote III.a: ik zeg het, ik weet dus eigenlijk niet of dat er andere bedrijven zijn die zoals Synergy

dat aanbieden eigenlijk. Ik ken echt alleen maar Synergy en ik heb nog geen enkel andere firma

gehad die dat heeft aangeboden. (p20)

Quote III.a: I mean, I honestly do not know if there are other firms like Synergy that offer

something similar. I only know Synergy and I have never been approached by another firm

that offers that. (p20)

Quote III.b: Dus ja ik zeg het, op dit moment zijn dit de dingen die we gebruiken en ik denk dat

we daarmee we voldoende hebben op dit moment. Maar er is ook niet echt een andere partij die

daar al op ingespeeld heeft of zo. (p20)

Quote III.b: So yes, on this current moment, these are the technological innovations we are

using and I’m of the opinion that this is sufficient for the moment. But there are no other

parties that really anticipates to this situation (p20)

Quote IV.1a: Ik zie dat [toekomst Belgische basketbal] wel positief in maar dan zullen er nog meer

ploegen sportiever wat moeten gaan investeren in jeugd, dat is heel belangrijk en dit gebeurt

momenteel te weinig (p5)

Quote IV.1a: I’m positive about the future of belgian basketball, but then more teams have

to invest in youth, this is very important and is done too little at present (p5)

XXIX

Quote IV.1b: ik denk ook dat er meer naar de media toe gewerkt moet worden, meer basketbal op

tv, dat gaat heel belangrijk zijn, maar dan moet er ook kwaliteit gebracht worden en die kwaliteit

kan je maar brengen vanop het moment dat uw infrastructuur goed is (p5)

Quote IV.1b: I also think that the focus should be more on working towards media

attention, more basketball on TV, this is going to be crucial, but then quality should be

offered and one can only deliver quality from the moment the infrastructure is on point (p5)

Quote IV.1c: [In Duitsland] iedereen had verplicht dezelfde LED-borden, dezelfde scoreborden,

uniformiteit creëren en van daaruit beginnen bouwen zodoende dat je ook een mooi product krijgt

(p5)

Quote IV.1c: In Germany, every club was obligated to have the same LED-scoreboards,

creating uniformity and based on that, a nice product could be created (p5)

Quote IV.1d: Maar we moeten ten alle prijzen proberen ons niveau aan te houden, zodat het niveau

van het Belgisch basketbal niet naar beneden gaat (p16).

Quote IV.1d: We have to, by all means, make sure the level of our competition is kept, thus

not allowing it to go down (p16).

Quote IV.1e: Bijvoorbeeld, in Frankrijk zijn de clubs verplicht om de regels van de plaats, de

grootte en het aantal sponsors die ze hebben op hun truitjes te volgen (p38)

Quote IV.1e: For example, in France the clubs are obligated to follow the rules concerning

the place, size and number of sponsors on their jerseys (p38)

Quote IV.1f: infrastructuur is ook een enorm belangrijk deel van de toekomst van het Belgisch

basketbal (p39)

Quote IV.1f: infrastructure is also a very important factor in the futur of belgian basketball

(p39)

Quote IV.2a: Zonder media kan je gewoon niet overleven. Dat zie je wel bij het wielrennen hé,

waarom is wielrennen zo populair? Één omdat veel mensen fietsen in België en twee omdat het

XXX

bijna elke dag op tv is. Voetbal net hetzelfde, zelfs kleine wedstrijden worden uitgezonden dus ik

denk dat wel enorm belangrijk is voor basketbal (p24)

Quote IV.2a: Without media, one cannot survive. A good example is cycle racing, why is

cycle racing so popular? First, because a lot of people cycle in Belgium and second, because

it is broadcasted almost every day on TV. The same applies for football, even unimportant

games are being broadcasted so I believe media attention to be very important for

basketball (p24)

Quote IV.2b: Weet je wat ik denk dat moeilijk is voor media-aandacht? … als je daar als niet-

basketbalkenner komt kijken, de bewegingen dat de scheidsrechter maakt en waarom je maar 2

stappen mag zetten en een fout en waarom maar 1 punt enzovoort. Ik denk dat dit heel moeilijk is

voor iemand zonder basketkennis (p24)

Quote IV.2b: Do you know what I think is difficult for media attention? … if you watch

basketball and you don’t know the sport, it is difficult to understand the movements of the

referee, why it is a fault or why only 1 point was made. I think that is very difficult for

someone with no knowlegde of the rules of basketball (p24)

Quote IV.3a: Ik vind ook dat we misschien met de liga meer zouden kunnen doen qua opbouwen

van een product ‘Belgium basketbal’. Het is volgens mij nog geen echt product (p38)

Quote IV.3a: I’m of the opinion that we could do more in cooperation with the Liga to

develop a product ‘Belgium basketball’. In my opinion, it is not yet a real product (p38)

Quote IV.3b: Ik geef een ander voorbeeld, een liedje van bijvoorbeeld de Jupiler League. Je hoort

dat op de radio en je weet meteen over wat het gaat. Dat is toch simpel? (p38)

Quote IV.3b: let me give a different example, the song of the Jupiler League. One hears it

on the radio and immediately knows what it is about. That’s [to do this for basketball as

well] simple, right? (p38)

Quote IV.3c: Ik ben natuurlijk geen economist maar ik denk … veel op tv, aantrekkelijke

evenementen zoals ‘Night of the Giants’ waar ze het sportpaleis proberen te vullen, Brussels die

in Vorst gaan spelen,… (p45)

XXXI

Quote IV.3c: I’m no economist but I think … a lot of air time, attractive events like ‘Night

of the Giants’ where they try to fill the Sportpaleis, team Brussels that plays a game at

Vorst National,… (p45)

Quote V.1a: De resultaten worden ook opgevolgd van hoeveel likes, hoeveel dit, hoeveel dat,

hoeveel keer het gedeeld wordt enzovoort en die cijfers worden dan ook gebruikt om mee te

pakken naar potentiële nieuwe sponsors (p15)

Quote V.1a: the results are followed up qua amount of likes, how many of this and how

many of that, how many times posts get shared etc. These figures are then used to take to

potential new sponsors (p15)

Quote V.1b: Waar we wel wat druk ervaren is voor Facebook en andere sociale media, daar wordt

nu wel veel meer op gefocust, alhoewel dat ik daar mijn twijfels over heb. Ik vind dat meer een

nadeel dan een voordeel (lacht) … ik vraag mij nog altijd af wanneer dat dat 1€ gaat

binnenbrengen, ik zie dat niet gebeuren (p5)

Quote V.1b: We do experience some pressure for Facebook and other social media, on that

aspect there has been a lot of focus lately, although I have my doubt about that. I think it is

more of a disadvantage than an advantage (smiles) … I’m still wondering when it will yield

€1, I don’t see that happening (p5)

Quote IV.a: Frankrijk basketbal, de tv rechten zijn €50 milioen voor 5 jaar, dus €10 milioen per

jaar. Dat is fantastisch, maar daar is het dus wel een product. Wij hebben nog geen product (p38)

Quote IV.a: The basketball in France for instance, TV-rights for five years there are worth

€50 million, so €10 million a year. That’s just great, but they can thus offer a product. We

do not yet have a product (p38)

Quote IV.b: Waarom zijn die liga’s rijk? Die hebben tv rechten, enorm veel tv rechten. Waarom?

Omdat ze een mooi product hebben en omdat de vraag om dit te zien op tv groot is, dus veel

klanten eigenlijk. Daarom kan je deze tv rechten voor een enorme prijs verkopen. (p38)

Quote IV.b: Why is it those Ligas are rich? They have TV-rights, lots of TV-rights. And

why is that? Because they can offer a nice product and because the demand to see this nice

XXXII

product on TV is big, thus a lot of customers. That’s why they can sell their TV-rights for

a huge amount of money. (p38)

Quote IV.c: Dus ik kan mij wel inbeelden dat mensen zeggen dat niet elke zaal even mooi oogt op

tv maar we doen ons best om dat in te kleden (p24)

Quote IV.c: So yes, I can imagine people saying that not every gym is as beautiful on

television, but we do our best to frame it in such a way it seems better (p24)

Quote IV.c: En ook, ik weet ook hoe ze in Duitsland begonnen zijn, 10-15 jaar geleden, terug met

alles op te bouwen… (p5)

Quote IV.c: I remember how they started in Germany, 10 to 15 years ago, by building

everything back from the ground … (p5)

Quote IV.d: Ik heb niet van infrastructuur gesproken met opzet. In Frankrijk en Duitsland zijn er

ook regels qua infrastructuur, iedere club moet een zaal van minimum x aantal zitplaatsen hebben,

dat is niet mogelijk bij ons. Waarom is dit mogelijk in Frankrijk? Omdat er eerst meer clubs zijn

en ook als er een club zou zijn die niet aan de regels zou voldoen, dan zijn er 5 clubs bereid om

die plaats in te nemen. (p39)

Quote IV.d: I did not mention the infrastructure on purpose. In France and Germany, there

are also rules with regard to infrastructure, for instance every club is obligated to have a

gym with a minimum of x number of seats, this is just not possible in Belgium. And why

is this possible in France? Because firstly there are more basketball teams and secondly,

for every team that does not meet the requirements, five new teams are ready to take their

place. (p39)

Quote IV.e: Als de liga zegt: ‘naam daar, stickers daar daar en daar, zo groot, …’, is dat moeilijk?

Ik denk het niet. En langzaam kunnen we misschien over een product beginnen te spreken. En elke

club en de liga moeten denken aan TV-RECHTEN, dat moet echt een doelstelling zijn voor iedere

club. (p39)

Quote IV.e: If the League says: “name there, stickers there there and there, that size … “,

is this difficult? I don’t think so. And slowly, we could start talking about a product. And

XXXIII

every club and the League should be thinking about TV-rights, that should be a goal for

every club. (p39)

Quote IV.f: Maar de eisen van de liga ten opzichte van de clubs gaan de laatste jaren meer en meer

naar beneden, en in een land als Duitsland hebben ze de eisen hoger en hoger en hoger gesteld.

(p34)

Quote IV.f: But the requirements of the League towards the clubs in the recent years have

gone down more and more, and in a country such as Germany, those requirements have

continued to go up. (p34)