Note: You are experiencing only the raw content of this site, without the intended layout and design. Either your browser has ignored the Cascading Style Sheet (CSS) files for this site, or you are using an outdated browser which does not support Web Standards. Learn more.

EDS' Next Big Thing Blog: Read and Respond to What the EDS Fellows Say About Technology

Read and respond to what the EDS Fellows have to say about the future of technology on EDS' Next Big Thing Blog on eds.com.

2001 'til today -- a value space odyssey

by Charlie Bess

I was thinking about the technologies we were enthused about as short as 5 years ago and the current state of many of those technologies today.

Back in 2001, it was all about processor speed — now we're fired up about multi-core. We may not be able to afford the speed. Instead we'll use virtualization to get the usage up for the processor capabilities we have. 802.11b was new, and we've now gone through G and are on the way to N and Wi-Max. Wireless is an expectation.

We were starting to talk about service oriented architectures and are still talking about SOA with mainly a future tense. Smart cards were on the cusp of having real impact. Smart cards are still on the cusp of something. RFID was just around the corner, and RFID is closer but widespread use is still just around the corner. Internet banking was saying we should put in ATMs and shut down branches. Now I swear there are more branches near my house than ever before. The whole view of customer interaction for higher margin business has shifted. We've moved from replacing legacy systems with ERP systems to integrating legacy systems with ERP systems.

Although ITIL existed back in 2001, it now seems to be really getting attention.

It is clear that we're turning more data into information, but there just never seems to be enough value to meet the needs. The lifespan of products has continued to shrink, but has the value delivered by them changed. When I think about the effort expended and the value delivered, the difference between two organizations can easily be an order of magnitude. What technologies should we be betting on now that will have a better track record?

Mobility - I think it will be a totally different mobility than what we think of today
Utility computing - In a way, it's the resurgence of the data centre
Workflow and automation - the whole concept of how work flows in organizations will undergo a significant shift

I've already mentioned a few like ERP, ITIL, Virtualization.

Published Wednesday, November 08, 2006 2:31 PM

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

Posted by Roy Woodhead Friday, July 13, 2007 9:25 AM

My theory of what helps or hinders new technology adoption is centred on the perceived risk customers have. Before joining EDS I was an academic at Oxford Brookes University and within the field of Technology Management asked a student to look at RFID for his undergraduate project. Whilst his research methods were as we'd expect for an undergraduate (i.e. a little wobbly in parts) he did clearly show that many manufacturers in the UK thought RFID would take off, but they were waiting for that tipping point before they committed. I have seen similar barriers to technology adoption such as a certain oil major and an innovation which had been proven in the R&D labs around 20 years before usage in the field; but why would a project manager, measured against deliverables defined from old technology mindsets, risk their success/bonus by trying something only proven in artificial environments such as a lab? This is the type of question we need to explore if we are to improve capabilities in our clients.

Many managers can cite benefits they would agree are were worth having. However, the fear of making a large investment (financial or personal esteem) which does not deliver such benefits must not be underestimated. Another worry is to find an even better technological solution pop up after a commitment had been made, and I have seen that happen also (i.e. if only we’d delayed the decision by one week syndrome). For many new technologies the downside risk weighs greater than the potential rewards. At the end of the day, the ‘specific’ people who back a new technology put their future promotion prospects on the line and so an element of personal risk plays a significant part in the way new technologies get a chance to prove themselves (Who ever got promoted for backing a disaster for their firm).

If we are to improve and accelerate new technology adoption, then our industry needs to collaborate with key potential users to reduce ‘their’ sense of perceived risk; the anticipated rewards must far out weight the perceived downside risks. There is a strategy property developers use which we may be able to learn from. Property developers, in a bid to get rents from new schemes (e.g. office block or shopping mall), offer very attractive rates to key clients such as a department store which boost confidence in the project (this is sometimes done before a scheme even starts). These are viewed as "anchor tenants" and once they are in place other smaller business see relocation as less of a risk; anchor tenants reduce perceived risk of the new investment and bolster confidence.

Maybe EDS could think along similar lines and use our alliances to reduce 'perceived risk' in technologies such as RFID, and in doing so accelerate the early adoption rate for those new technologies? Imagine asking our largest clients if they’d help us to steer the innovation and ‘technology adoption’ programmes within our alliances. It would certainly bring a different client-EDS dialogue.