Innovation Matters - Archive

Change of Address

Richard Veryard — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:50:00 +0000

I am moving this blog to Blogspot. If it works properly, all existing posts should be copied across. Archive copies will remain here on my personal website, but will not be updated.

The new location of the blog will be technologychangemanagement.blogspot.com.

If you are subscribed to this blog, please make sure that you are using the feedburner feed, as this will be redirected automatically. feeds.feedburner.com/InnovationMatters

Depending on your feed settings, you may receive repeated notification of updated posts when the blog moves. Please bear with me during this move. Normal service will be resumed etc etc.

Karlheinz Stockhausen

Richard Veryard — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 18:05:00 +0000

Stockhausen died last week. I lent my copy of Stimmung to my son's teacher, who played it to the class today.

In 1995, BBC Radio 3 facilitated an exchange between Stockhausen and several young composers. Stockhausen listened to some of music from each composer, and provided some comments and suggestions. In particular, he thought there was too much repetition.

One of the composers, Daniel Pemberton, responded thus: "I know what he means about loops though; that’s because I haven’t got much equipment."

Oh dear, poor Danny. As I pointed out in my earlier post Art and the Enterprise, Stockhausen and his contemporaries didn't exactly have much equipment either. Sometimes innovators have to build their own tools, or forage their own materials, before they can create what they want to create. And sometimes that turns out to be an essential part of the creative process.

Stockhausen is a major figure in twentieth century culture - reviled by those who hate the avant guard on principle, but admired by some of the most popular figures in twentieth century pop music - from Miles Davis to Herbie Hancock, from the Beatles to Pink Floyd, and from Frank Zappa to Sonic Youth.

Ninety-nine percent perspiration.

Sources: Advice to Clever Children (The Wire, November 1995)
Wikipedia: Karlheinz Stockhausen

Classifying Innovation

Richard Veryard — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 09:38:00 +0000

Masood Mortazavi (Sun Microsystems) quotes a distinction from Thomas Hughes between radical and conservative inventions.

"The system-originating inventions can be labeled radical, the system-improving ones conservative." Thomas P. Hughes (2004), American Genesis: A Century of Inventions and Technological Enthusiasm, 1870-1970

Masood claims Java (originally developed by Sun Microsystems) as a radical invention. But what exactly is the system that Java has created? (Obviously we're not just talking here about software systems written in Java - otherwise every minor programming language would count as a radical invention.) Does it mean something like "ecosystem"? And does one's view of this system depend on one's position - inside the Java world or outside?

Perhaps it's noteworthy that I can talk about a Java "world" at all. Perhaps this means that the Java world itself is "The System" for the purposes of Hughes' definition.

But I think the existence of "Systems" or "Worlds" in this sense is pretty subjective. I'd prefer to interpret Hughes' distinction as a spectrum (some inventions are more/less radical than others) rather than a rigid classification.

But there is another more fundamental problem with Hughes' classification, which is that it appears to confuse invention with innovation. There is often a huge gap (mental as well as temporal) between the invention of a device and the emergence of an innovation. The world of recorded music may be traced back to the invention of the gramophone; the world of telecommunications may be traced back to the invention of the telegraph or telephone; but the emergence of these worlds cannot be attributed solely to the invention of the device. Some of the inventions that powered the industrial revolution (including the steam engine, invented by Hero of Alexandria) were known to the ancients, who regarded them as toys and failed to appreciate their radical potential. The iPod doesn't get a Nobel Prize, despite the protestations of Fake Steve Jobs.

As for Java, I'd prefer to regard it as an innovative synthesis of earlier inventions. Object-oriented languages were invented in the 1960s (I learned Simula at college in the 1970s), but the OO world really only emerged in the late 1980s.

So I think the radical/conservative distinction applies better to innovations than to inventions.

There is of course a further problem - the later innovation distorts our perceptions of the earlier invention. It is now practically impossible to view the ancient steam engine without associating it with what it became nearly two thousand years later. Key inventions are disputed (telephone, television, calculus), and the invention itself becomes a social construction.

Which means the classification of inventions and/or innovations becomes an act of interpretation (hermeneutics). Does labelling something as "radical" tell us anything useful, or is it like ranking Reubens above Ingres?

Clockspeed and Competition

Richard Veryard — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:16:00 +0000

Innovation is supposed to grant competitive advantage, among other things. So we might expect the rate of innovation in a given sector to be linked to the degree of competition. (Setting aside for a moment the difficulties in measuring either of these objectively.)

In my very first post on this blog, Technology and Competition, I referred to the Marxian notion that technology is linked to a falling rate of profit, in which case it would make sense for monopolies to resist new technology. I found some support for this idea in a commentary about the Microsoft anti-trust case from the Economist magazine.

Even the advocates of accelerating technological change acknowledge the relevance of competitive forces. In his post Is the Pace of Business Really Increasing? Dave Bayless makes this point when discussing Charles Fine's notion of Clockspeed.

"The barriers to entry to the commercial aircraft and computer operating systems businesses, for example, slow industry clockspeed dramatically."

There are two contrary ways of viewing this. One is to describe technological change as primarily a technological phenomenon, which can then be influenced by secondary socioeconomic factors (e.g. increased by competition and decreased by monopoly). The other is to describe technological change as a social construction, where socioeconomic forces can make technologically trivial changes seem economically important.

Red Queen Effect 2

Richard Veryard — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 10:33:00 +0000

Dave Bayless has responded to Critiques of the Red Queen Model, including my comments on this blog (Red Queen Effect, see also Rates of Evolution).

Dave chooses to define innovation as "launching new products". Both John Hagel and I believe that there are other kinds of innovation that are important. But I have a more fundamental concern with Dave's definition - if I don't know exactly what counts as a "new product", then I don't know how to count them. If this year's model has a slightly faster chip than last year's model, or a brushed aluminium case, does that count as a "new product"? Let's say the iPod is a new product, but is the iPhone really a new product, or just a fancy redesign of an old product?

Lots of people in product development have a vested interest in labelling everything as "new improved". Pharma companies spend a small fortune looking for variations on existing drugs, so they can get patent protection for the "new" formula. But if you take these descriptions at face value, you get a fundamentally distorted view of the underlying technology change.

This is why I think we need a rigorous model of technology change, which handles some of the complications I raise in my previous blog entries.

Rates of Evolution

Richard Veryard — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 14:00:00 +0000

Post reformatted to remove unwanted white space

A fascinating paper by Philip D. Gingerich, shows how the observed rate of evolutionary change (measured in darwins), varies hugely according to the measurement context. (See table at foot of this post). In other words, the observed rate of biological evolution appears to be proportional to the proximity of scientists. Does a similar phenomenon apply to technological evolution?

(Note: I am not assuming that technological evolution is the same as biological evolution - merely that looking at one domain may prompt some interesting and important questions for the other domain.)

I have always been wary of the common belief that technological change is accelerating. I think this belief derives from a combination of proximity, selectivity and distorted perception. I think we can sometimes be disproportionately impressed by the glamour of recent technology, and misled by the commercially-driven measures of intellectual property (such as volumes of patent activity and product releases).

But consider these questions:

Did the lightbulb or bicycle change more
between the years 1880-1900?
or between the years 1980-2000?
Did the computer change more
from 1950 to 1970?
from 1980 to 2000?

It is certainly true that there have been huge numbers of small modifications to devices such as lightbulbs, bicycles and computers since 1980. There has also been a proliferation of variations and mutations. But will any of this innovation be remembered in fifty years time? From a historical perspective, this kind of detailed technological refinement (or even hyperactivity) may seem rather less significant than the initial burst of technical creativity when the device was taking shape in the first place.

Notes

Context	Timescale of Observations	Observed Rate of Change
Laboratory	1.5 - 10 years	60,000 darwins
Colonization studies	70 - 300 years	400 darwins
Post-pleistocene mammels	1,000 - 10,000 years	4 darwins
Fossil record	Millions of years	0.1 darwins

Philip D. Gingerich, Rates of Evolution: Effects of Time and Temporal Scaling. Science 14 October 1983: Vol. 222. no. 4620, pp. 159 - 161

ID Card Roll-Out

Richard Veryard — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:18:00 +0000

The UK Government is appointing a Director of Marketing and Communications to help oversee the roll-out of the UK identity card scheme. [Centre for Media and Democracy, via Fish and Chip Papers]

In other words, technology adoption is seen as a matter for PR (public relations).

It is certainly true that there are elements of marketing in any technology adoption project. But it would be curious if the sociopolitical as well as technological complexities of the proposed ID card scheme were solved by spin.

identity innovation technology adoption

Call Forwarding

Richard Veryard — Sat, 26 Aug 2006 07:21:00 +0000

cross-posted to Trustblog

According to legend, the automatic telephone exchange was invented by an undertaker (Almon Strowger) who believed his business was being redirected to his competitors by corrupt telephone operators.

David Lazarus reports a vulnerability in call forwarding, whereby a fraudster persuades ATT to redirect a pizza parlour's calls to him. In this case, the fraud involved collecting credit card numbers, but as Lazarus suggests, this scam could also be used by a competitor to steal business.

Further comments on Bruce Schneier's blog, where greygeek points out the historical irony of the Strowger switch.

Fraud erodes the benefits of technological progress. What were the original benefits of the automatic telephone exchange? It was efficient, impersonal and less vulnerable to bribery and corruption. These are some of the benefits of the classic bureaucracy as identified by Max Weber - and many technological innovations provide similar benefits.

And now the benefits of Strowger's innovation are apparently reversed. Don't assume that technology progress is always onward and upward.

Technorati Tags: innovation technology trust

School of Rock

Richard Veryard — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:49:00 +0000

Interesting programme School of Rock by British DJ Andy Kershaw on BBC Radio, talking about the role of British universities in fostering new bands in the 1970s. Kershaw himself was a student (and Entertainments Secretary) at Leeds University, then one of the most important rock venues in the UK.

According to Kershaw, the emergence of British rock music in the late 1960s and early 1970s was strengthened by several interlinked factors.

1. Universities provided significant clusters of "early adopters" - students willing to listen to new bands playing new styles.

2. Amateur entertainment secretaries, willing to take risks with new bands.

3. A common source of information about new bands - the DJ John Peel, who tirelessly championed new bands.

4. A rapid feedback loop connecting 1, 2 and 3. John Peel would play a new band, the university entertainment secretaries would then book the band, confidently expecting the students (having heard the band on John Peel's show) to turn up to the concert.

Of course, Kershaw may be exaggerating this effect a little (as a former participant in this process, and as the inheritor of John Peel's role at the BBC). But I'm not too bothered about that right now. What I wanted to talk about is the comparison between the 1970s and the 2000s, and the possible relevance to innovation more generally.

1. Universities are perhaps not such closed social systems as they were in the 1970s. Thanks to the telephone and the internet, students have much greater contact with friends and relatives away from university. Furthermore, students may see university as a place to consume education rather than as an all-embracing social institution, and students have many other loyalties and affiliations. Therefore the university may not be such a dominant clustering force as it used to be.

2. The role of entertainment secretary is not taken by a student elected to the post for a year or two, but by a professional manager who takes a job for many years. Professional events organizers are more risk-averse, and perhaps more predictable.

3. Before his death, John Peel felt he was being pushed out. (Andy Kershaw himself talked about this shortly after Peel's death.) His slot on Radio One got shorter and later, and the audiences got smaller. There was no longer a national community of Peel listeners.

4. And the feedback loops got longer. Concerts were booked long in advance, there was less room for rapid initiative, and the music business regained control.

Some people are hoping that the Internet will play a major enabling role in the emergence of new bands and new styles of music, and challenging the power of the music establishment. Some of the factors that were dominant in the British music scene in the 1970s might now possibly be reappearing in cyberspace.

And what (if anything) does this tell us about pockets of innovation in other domains?

Technorati tags: innovation music rock

Evolution or Revolution

Richard Veryard — Wed, 03 May 2006 02:07:00 +0000

Mache Creeger asks Evolution or Revolution = Where is the High in High-Tech?

"We work in an industry that prides itself on 'changing the world', one that chants a constant mantra of innovation and where new products could aptly be described as 'this year’s breakthrough of the century'. While there are some genuine revolutions in the technology industry, including cellphones, GPS (global positioning system), quantum computing, encryption, and global access to content, the vast majority of new product introductions are evolutionary, not revolutionary. Real technical breakthroughs are few and far between. Most new products are just a recycling of an earlier idea."

This represents a challenge to the popular belief in the accelerating rate of technical change. I have blogged about this before: Death of Software, Innovation or Refinement.

Bob Wyman complains about Creeger's distinction between evolution and revolution, and insists that Evolution = Revolution. There are undoubtedly some complications in evolutionary theory that Creeger doesn't mention. (Wyman references over a dozen articles in Wikipedia.) But I don't think this alters Creeger's basic argument about the pace of technological change. Wyman suggests that the current situation may be interpreted as part of an evolutionary cycle, and hopes (even predicts) that there is more innovation just around the corner.

"Today's thinkers are no less smart and no less innovative than were the folk working 'back in the day'. The difference is that today we're all still focused on working through the implications of the last revolution. In time we'll exhaust the realm of easily achieved secondary innovations and we'll then be ready to move on to more revolutionary 'Cambrian' times again. It is always like this. It always has been and it always will be."

He appeals vaguely to various intellectual authorities (including Stephen Jay Gould and the entire Santa Fe Institute) in support of this wishful thinking, before falling back on some popular but lightweight business literature (Clayton Christensen: The Innovator's Dilemma, The Innovator's Solution).

Ultimately, the comparison between biological evolution and technological evolution may be useful as an explanatory device, or as a source of interesting hypotheses, but not as a reliable source of predictions about the future.

How can we measure the true pace of technological change? Some people use patent activity as a metric, but this metric is made almost meaningless by the vast number of trivial patents, as both Creeger and Wyman agree. How can we decide which are the major innovations? Creeger mentions a few, but Wyman has his doubts even about these.

The success of evolutionary theory is based in part on painstaking observation and classification by generations of biologists. We simply don't have an equivalent body of knowledge about technological innovation. What we have is large amounts of hype and hot air, and a relatively small number of detailed scientific studies of particular innovations.

Even in the absence of detailed empirical data, however, it is always useful to step back from the current obsession with technical wizardry, and try to get a bigger picture of technological change. In this spirit, I welcome both Creeger's polemic and Wyman's reinterpretation, while remaining cautious about the inevitable subjectivity of both.

Technorati Tags: evolution innovation technology

Bart Simpson Effect

Richard Veryard — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 08:08:00 +0000

In an earlier post on the Red Queen Effect, I said that the Red Queen has now become an icon for a certain kind of energetic innovation - believing the impossible, accelerating and relentless change.

In his post Bart Simpson and Sun Tzu on Technology Strategy, the Redmonk analyst Stephen O'Grady identifies another paradoxical innovation strategy, which we could call the Bart Simpson effect.

In Episode 802 (production code 3F23) Bart Simpson has been placed in a remedial class for some reason. He spots a paradox. "Let me get this straight. We're behind the rest of our class and we're going to catch up to them by going slower than they are?"

Some of the greatest minds of all time were considered dull at school. Winston Churchill was not clever enough to do Latin, so he had to spend more time polishing his command of English instead. [Wikipedia: Churchill] And Albert Einstein was considered a slow learner. "He later credited his development of the theory of relativity to this slowness, saying that by pondering space and time later than most children, he was able to apply a more developed intellect." [Wikipedia: Einstein]

Perhaps there are some things you can only get when you do things slowly. Part of the problem with the school system is an obsession with speed. [See my previous piece Systems4Success]. Most parents fondly believe their children to be above average in intelligence, based on fluency, literacy, numeracy, for example an ability to follow the rules of school mathematics and solve average problems slightly faster than the other children. The dreamer who spends all day thinking deeply about a maths problem probably isn't going to get top marks at school. But mathematical genius is about depth rather than speed, wondering what happens when you change the rules.

Stephen points to the folly of trying to catch the competitors on their own terms. "For all of the bubble era or Web 2.0 talk of 'disruptive' technologies, you'd be surprised at just how many vendors we speak with who anticipate closing marketshare or other gaps by simply outexecuting or outperforming their competitors."

If everyone is trying to be bigger and faster, then why not try smaller and slower. If everyone is trying to be smarter, why not try wiser.

And break the rules.

Technorati Tags: innovation

Art and the Enterprise

Richard Veryard — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 10:07:00 +0000

Artistic Innovation

Sometimes artists produce amazing innovations, with painstaking labour. Subsequent technology makes this painstaking labour unnecessary. We can recognize two separate innovations - the product innovation (what the artist produces) and the process/production innovation (what the technology produces).

What is the linkage between these two innovations? To what extent has the artistic innovation stimulated the technological innovation, established a proof-of-concept which technologists can then implement. Great art changes the way we perceive the world, and this may include changing our understanding of the possible.

One example I have quoted a couple of times is Karlheinz Stockhausen and the synthesizer. In the 1950s, Stockhausen and other composers produced some innovative pieces of electronic music, for which every sound had to be hand-crafted. Once the synthesizer had been invented, similar music could be easily produced with a few quick knob-twiddles. As a result of the widespread use of synthesizers in popular music, as well as the many rock musicians (Beatles, Can, Zappa) who pay explicit tribute to Stockhausen, a piece like Kontakte sounds a lot less strange to the modern ear than it did to the contemporary ear.

On this point I disagree with Brian Eno, who once commented that "Stockhausen was an example of a charismatic theoretician who inspired a lot of people but whose own work is generally unlistenable." [source: MOJO April 1997, interview with Andy Gill]

Does this familiarity diminish the striking originality of Stockhausen's work? Or should we regard Stockhausen's achievement with greater respect, because of his lack of tools, and his (arguable) influence over later technology as well as (acknowledged and unacknowledged) influence over later music-making.

Update: I should also mention the BBC Radiophonic Workshop here. The brilliant Delia Derbyshire produced the original theme music for Doctor Who using hand-made equipment - music that today still sounds utterly wild and futuristic. (Sadly, the BBC no longer uses this version, and now plays a tame remix recorded with modern equipment.)

Similar examples can be found in the visual arts before the invention of photography. Many artists developed styles of painting and perspective which predated the modern camera.

Enterprise Innovation

I think there are three important patterns here that may be relevant for enterprise innovation.

Innovation before automation. Don't automate something until you have understood it, simplified it, improved it. (This principle is sometimes known by the slogan: Don't pave the cow-paths.)

Retain the capability for further innovation. Automation should not eliminate the possibility of hands-on creativity. Lewis Mumford (in Technics and Civilization) argues that it is generally beneficial to retain some 'craft' production alongside automated 'factory' production, as a source of 'education, recreation and experiment' and 'as a means to further insight, disovery and invention'.

Invent in order to innovate. A composer such as Thomas Dolby, who sets out to invent new tools for producing music (including building new hardware and software), may thereby be able to produce music that is different to what everyone else is producing.

For previous discussion of Stockhausen, see my posts on Lightweight Enterprise, and Thomas Dolby's keynote speech at the 2005 Rational Conference.

Technological Progress

Richard Veryard — Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:40:00 +0000

For those interested in technological progress, there are some interesting comparisons between the response to the Californian earthquake in 1906 and to Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Speaking on BBC radio the other day, Simon Winchester (geologist and author of a recent book on the 1906 earthquake) asserted that the response from Washington was faster and better organized in 1906 than in 2005.

So much for a hundred years of communication technology then!

Of course, Winchester's comparison should not be taken as a simple case of "1906 good, 2005 bad". Some right-wing American commentators (e.g. Donald Luskin) have talked about some of the coordination failures in 1906.

And there are many other differences between 1906 and 2005, including the significant (some might say pernicious) influence of the legal system.

There are clearly some important lessons to be drawn from Hurricane Katrina about the management of complex sociotechnical systems of systems, and I have been talking about some of these on my SOAPbox blog (see especially posts on Efficiency & Regulation 1, 2).

But the technological question still remains, if there is anyone prepared to do the research and tease apart the various threads of explanation. To the extent that the US Government is less capable in any respect than a hundred years ago, what are the reasons for this, and how can this finding be reconciled with an optimistic view of the benefits of technology?

Technorati tags: crisis management earthquake hurricane innovation

Adoption and Risk

Richard Veryard — Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:06:00 +0000

Pat Patterson works for Sun Microsystems, and is a champion of the Liberty Alliance. He is therefore highly interested in the adoption of federated identity and related technologies.

Clearly there is a relationship between the adoption of these technologies and the adoption of the underlying transactions that these technologies are supposed to protect, such as online bill payments. In a blog posting entitled Emergent Effects in Identity Federation, Pat suggests that online bill payments follows a classic technology adoption curve.

But there are some complications with this. Firstly, we might reasonably suppose that the decision to adopt online bill payments (or even to revert to offline payments) is influenced by a person's sense of how risky this is, and this in turn depends on the perceived security. So the adoption of online bill payments depends partly on the maturity and adoption of the security mechanisms. (Assuming the mechanisms work.)

But the risk also depends on the sophistication and organization of the attackers. Whereas in many classic technology adoption situations, the actual risk and the perceived risk are both on a downward curve (although not necessarily in synch), this case is different because the widespread adoption of online bill payments can be assumed to trigger innovation by criminals. Phishing only becomes economically viable for the criminals when there are enough idiots doing online bill payments. Therefore there is an adoption curve for the attack as well as for the defence.

Important Clarification Update: It might sound like I'm saying that it's idiotic to do online bill payments, but what I'm really saying here is that it's a bit idiotic to fall for phishing. So when there were only a few smart people doing online bill payments, there wasn't much point trying to phish.

So we have three different adoption processes (underlying transaction, attack mechanisms, defence mechanisms) that interact in complex ways. Surely the aggregate effect of this interaction is unlikely to be a classic curve.

Technorati Tags: identity risk security technology adoption

Red Queen Effect

Richard Veryard — Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:18:00 +0000

The Victorian mathematician and fantasist Lewis Carroll used the character of the Red Queen to parody grotesque forms of reasoning and energy: believing impossible things (before breakfast), running to remain stationary.

Believing the impossible, accelerating and relentless change - these are now among the totems of innovation. The Red Queen has now become an icon for a certain kind of energetic innovation.

There are several other related terms.

Running Up the Down Escalator. The SEI has a video with this title, presented by risk management consultant Bob Charette. (I haven't seen this video, but I've seen other materials derived from Charette's work that portray the staircase as a corkscrew or helix, spiralling downwards as you try to run up.)
Continuous Bootstrapping / Perpetual Bootstrapping.

Dave Bayless (Evergreen Innovation Partners) has recently propounded a model of accelerating product innovation, which he has also named after the Red Queen. He points out that the compound effect of a 10% annual acceleration in product innovation results in a halving of product life cycle duration every seven years See his blog and video on Innovation, Clockspeed & the Red Queen Effect. See also comment by John Hagel: Product Innovation and the Red Queen Effect.

While this model has some intuitive appeal, there are some interesting complications (or asymmetries).

1. The product is not the technology. A product may be composed from a large number of components, each of which may be subject to technical innovation. Product innovation is not a simple linear function of technology innovation; a product lifecycle can be extremely short, but most of the underlying technology may be moving much more slowly. Or vice versa.

2. The adoption is not the innovation (as John Hagel points out). Innovation includes process innovations as well as product innovations. Hagel suggests that "rapid incremental process innovation combined with aggressive leveraging of third party resources may in fact hold the key to diminishing, if not overcoming, the Red Queen effect."

3. The "device" is not the "commodity". Small incremental changes in the product may result in radical changes in user experience and practice, while radical substitutions on the technology side may simply be experienced as slight improvements in service cost and quality. For example, the consumer experience of innovation in automobiles or electronics or mobile telephones is not based on the rapid turnover of model numbers and versions, but on major (and relatively infrequent) step changes in functionality and performance.

A rigorous model of technology change must articulate these different layers clearly.

Technorati Tags: asymmetry innovation technology adoption

Technology Hype Curve

Richard Veryard — Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:26:00 +0000

The Gartner Group produces a large range of technology trends and predictions, based on a so-called Hype Cycle model. (The term Hype Cycle implies that things come round again. But the model is not cyclic, so it is more accurate to refer to it as a Hype Curve model.) I have just been looking at a Gartner document that includes curves for 1995 and 2005.

Here are some clues about the degree of rigour and empirical support underpinning Gartner's analysis.

Clue Number One: All technologies appear to have the same eventual outcome.

Clue Number Two: All the points are perfectly on the line. To a scientific mind, this indicates that the coordinates are not based on any real objective measurement, and that the curve itself is not subject to scientific investigation or calibration. The curve itself is based on a standard engineering pattern.

Clue Number Three: The shape of the line has not altered (or accelerated) in ten years. But all the evidence points to a shifting (shrinking) curve. For one thing, technology studies suggest that the half-life of new technologies is getting shorter. (This is sometimes known as the Red Queen Effect.) Furthermore, we might expect the quantity of attention received by each technology to be affected by the number of technologies competing for attention - and since this is increasing, the quantity and/or duration of hype might be reduced - in other words the hype curve getting steeper. (Surely technologies used to remain at the top of the hype curve for longer than they do today?)

Rather than just 1995 and 2005, it would be useful to see the whole series - so we can pick out those technologies that have gone faster or slower than Gartner had expected. Interesting that Gartner has chosen not to include this information in the self-congratulatory document I have seen.

The Aye Conference has a good discussion on the Hype Curve. I have some comments on the implications for the software industry on my Software Industry Analysis blog.

Technorati Tags: hype hype curve hype cycle technology adoption technology dissemination

Differential Adoption

Richard Veryard — Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:45:00 +0000

Where there are two competing technologies in a given space, we may be able to learn something interesting from the differential patterns of adoption. (In studying a technology in relation to its adoption space, we get a better understanding of both.)

RSS and Atom represent two competing standards for internet syndication. James Snell recently posted a quick note of some of the technical differences: So what's the deal with Atom? He has now discovered some evidence of differential adoption between RSS and Atom. It turns out RSS and Atom really are different.

However, we need to interpret this evidence carefully. Technology often goes in clusters - one technology drags other technologies on its coattails - and it is not always obvious which technology is the determining factor in the user selection.

(In biological evolution, there is a phenomon known as genetic coupling, which links together apparently distinct features and prevents them from developing independently of one another. Thus natural selection doesn't prove the advantages of a single feature in isolation, merely the aggregate advantages of some group of features. Similar coupling often happens with interdependent technologies, and this complicates the study of technology adoption.)

In this particular example, the user preference for either Atom or RSS is correlated to a user preference for different news readers (e.g. Bloglines versus RSS readers).

Bloglines readers are more likely to subscribe to Atom.
Atom readers are more likely to use Bloglines.

There are many possible ways of explaining this correlation. Maybe this has something to do with the characteristics of the Bloglines user (of which I'm one). Or perhaps it has something to do with the design of the Bloglines subscription mechanism. Where a blog offers both an RSS feed and an Atom feed, Bloglines readers are given the choice. (For my part, I always choose the Atom feed.)

In his recent book Democratizing Innovation (free download here), Eric von Hippel discusses lead users and identifies three characteristics as follows:

ahead of the majority of users in their populations with respect to an important market trend,
expecting to gain relatively high benefits from a solution to the needs they have encountered there,
and a significant source of innovation - many of the novel products they develop for their own use will appeal to other users too and so might provide the basis for products manufacturers would wish to commercialize

James Snell refers to this book, and suggests that Atom users may be lead users in this sense. But the differences between Atom and RSS (as described by James) don't seem to warrant this suggestion. Is there any evidence that these Atom users are actually exploiting the technical differences between Atom and RSS, and/or generating significant quantities of user-centred innovation?

Technorati Tags: Atom-enabled innovation RSS technology adoption

Innovative Industries

Richard Veryard — Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:16:00 +0000

Food and consumer goods companies are the most efficient innovators, according to a recent survey of 850 companies by Arthur D Little, while aerospace and utilities are the least efficient. Innovation efficiency is defined as the amount of revenue attributed to new products, proportional to R&D spending.

Source: Financial Times, April 21st 2005

Perhaps not surprisingly, innovation is most efficient in the industries where competition is keenest. This appears to support our previous thoughts on Technology and Competition.

Technorati Tags: innovation competition

Is Regulation a Drag?

Richard Veryard — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:13:00 +0000

Is regulation a drag on innovation?

Here's an example to explore. Following the ChoicePoint scandal, there have been some proposals in the USA to tighten privacy.

Adam Shostack writes: "A number of smart people (for example, Jim Harper writing on Politech) critique the drag on innovation that such a regime entails. I'm very sympathetic to this critique."

Innovation often generates risk, not just for the innovators but for other parties within the ecosystem. Some campaigners oppose some kinds of innovation altogether, on the grounds that the risks are unbounded and unacceptable. This argument has been used against nuclear energy and GM food.

But if we think a particular innovation should go ahead, there is still a question of risk management and governance. There is no reason why unnecessary and foreseeable risks should be taken, and it is surely appropriate to ensure that innocent bystanders are not unduly put at risk. This principle is now widely accepted in many domains.

There were many historical innovations that seriously endangered or poisoned the engineers and their neighbours. If present-day Health and Safety legislation and Anti-Pollution regulations had been in force, the industrial revolution might never have happened. Perhaps some engineers hanker for the old days of reckless entrepreneurial experiment, but I don't want to live next door to someone who is developing a new kind of explosive in his garden shed, thank you very much.

That doesn't mean I think regulation is the best mechanism for governing risk. And I don't for one moment imagine that we can remove all risk and uncertainty from our lives. But where innovation involves serious and obvious risk of loss, especially to other people, I think it is reasonable to insist on some kind of governance mechanism.

Triumph of Technology

Richard Veryard — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:07:00 +0000

Every year the BBC broadcasts a series of radio lectures by a distinguished speaker, known as the Reith Lectures. The lectures for 2005 are called The Triumph of Technology, and are given by the engineer Lord Broers. Transcripts, audio and podcasting are available after each broadcast from the BBC website.

The BBC is currently running a popular vote to identify the greatest invention of the last 200 years. Lord Broers' vote goes to the transistor.

At the end of the second lecture (April 13th), Lord Broers was asked to predict the most important innovation of the next 50 years. He suggested that it would be really useful to have a laptop computer that you could roll up and put in your pocket, like a newspaper. Well, that would be nice, but hardly seems to rank in importance with the great innovations of the past. Elsewhere, there are more ambitious (and perhaps more interesting) predictions. For example, Hans Moravec, research professor at Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute in Pittsburgh, expects robotics to develop in interesting ways.

"Robot controllers double in complexity (processing power) every year or two. They are now barely at the lower range of vertebrate complexity, but should catch up with us within a half-century. By 2050 I predict that there will be robots with humanlike mental power, with the ability to abstract and generalise." (Guardian, April 14th, 2005)

In his second lecture (April 13th), Lord Broers talked about Collaboration. His main thesis was that technological progress comes from distributed teams of different experts, working at the leading edge of a given field. There is apparently no room in Lord Broers' world for the enclosed laboratory, with researchers working in isolation from their peers. But there is perhaps also no room for the gifted maverick or the chance discovery, or for the complex social processes described by W.E. Bijker in Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs: Toward a Theory of Sociotechnical Change (MIT 1995).

Lord Broers' third lecture (April 20th) was on Innovation and Management.

Technorati Tags: innovation reith

Off-Label as Innovation

Richard Veryard — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:40:00 +0000

In a pharmaceutical context, Off-Label refers to uses of drugs that are not approved by the regulators and cannot therefore be printed on the product label or officially promoted by the drug company. More generally, it refers to any unauthorized or emergent use of a product or service. In this blog posting, I shall explore the implications of off-label for innovation and technological change.

According to Alexander Tabarrok and Daniel Klein, Off-Label Drug Awareness Saves Lives (Independent Institute, Feb 2003). "Off-label prescribing is a vital aspect of modern medicine because it often happens that new and important uses are discovered for old drugs."

For some drugs, it seems there is more off-label usage than on-label usage. The medical state-of-the-art can be found in off-label use of drugs, and professional presentations that restrict themselves to on-label uses may lack medical credibility. Robert Stern describes a communication event that was poorly attended, because it was thought to be on the side of the official label, rather than on the side of emergent practice.

Many good uses of drugs may be suppressed by regulators, or self-censored by drug companies in order to get speedy approval. Robert Stern quotes a physician as saying "Often the drug companies will under-dose their labeling to get it through the FDA."

But drug companies are not permitted to promote off-label uses of drugs. This apparently extends to the dissemination of research data concerning possible off-label uses. See Litigation Threatens Off-Label Pharmaceutical Sales, by Kenneth J. Nolan (HealthLeaders News, January 21, 2004)

Off-label eventually becomes on-label. A well-known example is the use of aspirin for heart conditions. Regulators resisted this use of aspirin for years; it is now widely accepted. This provides us with an important pattern of technology development and dissemination.

[Update] Going beyond pharma, we can see similar innovation processes elsewhere. There's a very familiar example in telecoms. Telephone companies were originally oriented towards providing voice services. Computer users started to use modems, which were designed to extract added value from a voice connection by using it to transmit data. With Voice Over IP, we have now come full-circle: VOIP is designed to extract added value from a data connection by using it to transmit voice. These services are now officially sold by the telephone companies - off-label has become on-label.

Technology Adoption and Control

Richard Veryard — Sat, 05 Mar 2005 03:30:00 +0000

Some engineers prefer to quit employer than change technology. For example someone called Moe Taxes who says I don't feel like I have enough control over the product when I use Microsoft programming environments. [Source: Slashdot, but the discussion quickly gets off the point.]

Rocky Lhotka rightly points out that an engineer cannot grow professionally while refusing to learn new technologies. It is also true that new technologies may call upon the engineer to relinquish some aspects of control, and some engineers find this scary. On the other hand, Sahil Malik says that he'd rather specialize and be an expert in what he's already good at.

So there is an interesting relationship between technology adoption at the organization level, and technology adoption at the individual level. Sometimes the affiliation between an engineer and a given technology is stronger than the alliance with the employer. The pursuit of excellence can sometimes inhibit innovation, both for individuals and organizations. But that isn't a reason to discourage the pursuit of excellence.

Looking at the problem from the other end, I heard recently of an organization that had decided to adopt SAP software, but then got stuck because it couldn't find anyone with exactly the right combination of specialist industry knowledge and SAP skills. (This was not surprising because they were the first SAP user in this particular sector.) Again this can be seen as a control issue - the organization aspiring for a perfect SAP implementation, while being distrustful of SAP specialists from outside.

Systematizing Innovation

Richard Veryard — Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:51:00 +0000

BusinessWeek	How do you systematize innovation?
Steve Jobs (Apple, Pixar)	You don't. You hire good people who will challenge each other every day to make the best products possible.
Michael Helfrich (exGroove)	Jobs echoes a core value of mine that there is no real way to systematize innovation. ... We must embrace creative friction as a corporate value. Management then needs to demonstrate an appreciation of new, radical ideas and act on the ones that make sense.

Source: Voices of Innovation (Oct 11, 2004)
Via: Michael Helfrich's weblog (Jan 23, 2005)
See also Diego Rodriguez (Oct 15, 2004)

This amounts to an ethic of innovation: ... good people ... best products ... creative friction ... new, radical ideas ... making sense. But how do you know who the best people are, which the best products are, which ideas make sense?

In a closed system, these would all be foreclosed. In a closed system, management operates against fixed notions (making sense) of the qualities of peoples, the qualities of products, and the qualities of ideas. In this context, systematization reduces innovation to a bureaucratic game.

In an open system, these notions are all open for revision and reframing. Systematization means systematically paying attention to certain qualities, systematically learning (both single-loop and double-loop). How can we understand and manage innovation, how can we best deploy the innovative capacity of the organization, without some degree of systematization?

Of course, I appreciate that this is not quite what Jobs and Helfrich mean by systematization. But I find their espoused account of innovation glib and unsatisfying: rather like attributing the success of America to motherhood and applepie. We can - indeed must - think systematically about innovation.

Jobs and Rodriguez both believe that there are two types of people: creative and routine. I don't agree. Of course there are two contrasting behaviour patterns and there are people who naturally fall into one or other pattern. Not only are both patterns needed in a successful organization, they are both needed for the successful implementation of a successful innovation. And people can (should, must) be encouraged, enabled and empowered to move beyond their initial behaviour patterns. Thus everyone is capable of being creative in his/her own way; everyone is capable of contributing to innovation: a truly innovative organization provides maximum opportunities for this for everyone.

So my ethic of innovation is slightly different: get the best out of everyone, take power to the edge, innovate at several levels. Not just new, radical ideas from the most highly paid product engineers, but also old radical ideas and a passion to innovate from anyone who genuinely wants to contribute.

Innovation or Refinement?

Richard Veryard — Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:16:00 +0000

The 2004 R&D Scoreboard, issued by the UK Department of Trade and Industry, contains a table of companies in the FT Global 500 with high R&D intensity (defined as R&D spend as a proportion of sales). [see earlier discussion: Investor Perspective]

Among large software companies, Computer Associates (CA) comes out top. It spends nearly $400m on R&D, which represents more than 20% of sales.

Perhaps more than any other software company, CA has largely grown by acquisition. It has accumulated a remarkably diverse portfolio of software products - typically mature products with an established and loyal customer base - which it largely manages as cash cows. Most products are upgraded at least annually, to reflect changing platforms (e.g. new versions of Windows), emerging standards (e.g. web services), security threats, and other external requirements. This clearly represents a massive amount of development effort, but it is hard to see much of this expenditure as directly contributing to innovation. CA does have some genuine and potentially valuable innovation, but this only accounts for a fraction of its R&D expenditure. [see earlier discussion: Death of Software?]

CA is spending a large amount of development money on maintenance - in other words, simply keeping its products up-to-date. CA's customers are spending large amounts of money too - not just in buying CA's products (thus helping to fund CA's maintainance expenditure) but in additional hardware and other resources.

This maintenance cost is necessitated by innovation elsewhere. Whenever Microsoft releases a new version of Windows, and whenever some malware producer discovers a new vulnerability in Windows, this forces large numbers of software producers to upgrade their products and services, and even larger numbers of users to patch or upgrade their hardware and software. There may indeed be some innovative new features in the latest version of Windows, but the total cost of this innovation is spread right across the IT industry, and is thus mostly incurred by people who have no use for these innovative new features.

Does this mean that people who use these innovative new features (the early adopters) are being subsidized by people who don't? Well in the short-term, perhaps yes. But the early adopters incur high risk and may provide valuable feedback - thus ultimately benefiting everyone. So it's all fair in the long run. Isn't it?

Innovation Gap

Richard Veryard — Tue, 09 Nov 2004 13:08:00 +0000

My friend and colleague Paul St Clair Terry has developed the following model of innovation, in which an innovation gap is composed of a utilization gap and a requirements gap.

From his first graph, we get a picture of innovation surfing the crests of the technology waves.

The second graph shows what happens when business innovation and technology innovation are out of phase, giving us an innovation gap. (For the purposes of this model, we make the simplifying assumption that the two curves have the same cycle time.)

This picture supports a three-stage model of business development:

Diversification (bet-spreading stage)	Free proliferation of technology-enabled ideas exploiting new and emerging technologies.
Convergence (value focus stage)	Harvesting, focusing and disseminating best-practice thinking to maximize value-creation.
Integration (leveraging stage)	Commoditizing and embedding sustainable/mature business innovations.

Finally, the third graph shows a further phase gap. If infrastructure is aligned to current strategy, it continually lags behind business development. The largest gap occurs when infrastructure is most out of phase as business seeks to innovate in rapidly evolving markets. The smallest gap occurs when requirements stabilize as business matures and innovation slows.