DTM.Preface:3 - A connected worked inquiry

Consider a group of engineering teams deciding whether to adopt a new method with a different exchange format. Existing conversion permits exchange with old-method partners, but at a cost. Some participants call the resulting delay resistance to innovation; others describe the new format as a threat.

DTM.1 starts with the work and recipients. Suppose the benefit to a switching team is 2 units over the chosen horizon, adoption costs 0.5, and conversion costs 3 times the share of its relevant partners still using the old method. These are constructed values, with all conversion cost borne by the switching team. The unchanged arrangement is the comparison, not a claim of zero existing benefit.

DTM.2 separates hearing about the method from being capable and authorized to use it. If no eligible team encounters it, an attractive gain does not produce adoption. If teams cannot execute the method, a better announcement does not supply that capability.

DTM.3/.6 connect partner composition to the gain from switching. With f the share of relevant partners already using it, the gain is 2−0.5−3(1−f). It is −0.9 at f=0.2 and 0.9 at f=0.8. The relation is compatibility-mediated facilitation, not proof that participants irrationally reject novelty. DTM.4 identifies the positive-gain threshold f>0.5, while keeping that comparison separate from a dynamic law of adoption.

An available adapter costing 0.4 and reducing the conversion coefficient to 0.2 gives gain 0.94 at f=0.2. Its engineering method must establish the promised exchange and cost. A change in who bears conversion cost requires recomputing the consequences for both sides.

If an admission check rejects the new format to preserve a required exchange result, DTM.8 locates its target. The comparison can now include retaining the restriction, providing the adapter or changing the receiving work. DTM.9 is needed if the checking response has consequential memory, cost or effects on other useful activity. It is not invoked merely because a restriction exists.

The question does not require decomposing a change across source groups, and no diversion of support has been identified. DTM.5/.7 therefore add no required step. The first useful result is the conditional compatibility account and a concrete engineering and uptake question. It is not a forecast that the adapter will be adopted.