Strategies, approaches, methods for motivating innovation adoption in academia I'm curious about what strategies, approaches and/or methods people (successfully) use in academia for motivating colleagues to adopt innovative research collaboration mechanisms, workflows and/or tools. Please share your experience or point to proven range of approaches.

The following is in lieu of background information. Currently I'm leading a university project for developing a software platform for scientific research and e-collaboration in a particular scientific domain. Earlier I have installed, configured and publicized another software platform with a goal of increasing research productivity and make scientific collaboration and reproducibility easier within our group and beyond. Unfortunately, after initial decent interest of some people, most of them (and the rest) went back to "doing business as usual". I understand that researchers are busy and are under a lot of pressure to meet/exceed expectations and due to career advancement demands. I don't want to shove innovation down people's throats, but, at the same time, I'm quite frustrated that people do not see (or don't want to see, or don't care) significant potential benefits of some new ways in doing research and/or scientific software development in academia.

Considering the high visibility of my current project, I started thinking about / trying to come up with novel strategies and approaches to motivating colleagues in academia toward adopting innovative methods/tools (i.e., Agile) through emphasizing their potential benefits and/or lost opportunity in research productivity and other aspects, when such innovative methods/tools are not used.
The best way to illustrate the value of new tools is to effectively use them yourself. If you are an active researcher and you are twice as efficient as your peers, then your peers might ask you how you manage such a torrid pace.

It sounds like you are not an actual user of your own tools. Moreover, it sounds like researchers demonstrated a willingness to try your tools and were not impressed. I would advise concentrating your energies on figuring out why these researchers chose to go back to "business as usual". You are most likely to succeed if you start from the premise that they know how to do their jobs effectively.