Brian Arthur's Article: Is Info Revolution Dead?

[Owen Densmore]

Here is Brian's article:
        http://www.backspaces.net/files/IsInfoRevolDead.html
..and a panel held w/ Brian, Andy Grove, and Larry Lessig:
        http://www.backspaces.net/files/IsInfoDeadPanel.html

The reason I find this paper so central today is that it discusses the
initial rapid success of new "clusters" of technologies, followed by a
bust after the initial over enthusiastic embrace of the technologies,
followed by the maturation period .. which is the period of real wealth
creation and success.

We find ourselves in this third period.  I feel we can look at a few of
Brian's observations and incorporate them into both our Venture
strategies and our understanding of what will be most likely to succeed
in this new phase.  I argue, for example, that the first boom is one of
Intellectual Property, while the second boom is one of Intellectual
Capital .. i.e. know-how over invention.  I think Brian's thesis also
supports the observation that new IT build out in the nooks and
crannies (like casinos and the state judicial system) are likely to be
quite successful, especially if they laterally integrate with nearby IT
infrastructures.  Thus casinos with hotels, judiciary processing with
the DMV.

Owen

Owen Densmore           451 Camino Don Miguel     Santa Fe, NM 87505
Work: 505-983-6305      Cell: 505-570-0168        Home: 505-988-3787
[hidden email] http://complexityworkshop.com http://backspaces.net

[Carl Tollander-2]

I'm having some trouble reconciling Arthur's notion of the
mature technology supporting "amenity", ie effectively becoming
invisible, with the notion of a concious IT build-out.  Not sure
I agree with the notion of intellectual capital being in the
realm of amenity as it is anything but invisible.

We might argue something along the lines of "technological maturity"
coming from the implications of the technology reaching, creating
and maintaining the "edges" of networks.  The early bust comes
from investment not fully understanding the edges of the networks that have
been built in the earlier boom time.  As investment thereby runs out
of frontier, an 'optimization catastrophe' occurs with the early business
entities trying desperately to do 'more with less' (before they run out
of resources), which generally (look around) means less for most everyone
(Productivity and Amenity are not the same thing...)  The second boom
happens
as inventors learn how to colonize the network edges (sometimes with
the next (or parallel) wave of boomlet tech), and we learn how to do
'more with more'.

All this might be silly, of course, since the wave clusters don't happen
serially.
Are we in phase one of nano, phase two of materials?  What phase of
proteomics?  Are they all part of the same cluster? (no) All these
overlapping waves don't merely add, but inform each other.  If the info
revolution is not dead, maybe its because in retrospect it wasn't a
revolution at all, but simply a supporting player in something much larger.

One implication, I guess, is that Invention is central all the way through
any tech life cycle, which might go some distance in explaining the ongoing
issues between ip and ic.  Invention begets Amenity which begets Slack
which begets Invention.

I was suprised that, in the panel, Lessig didn't more aggressively place the
establishment of a technological commons as part of a maturation
phase.  Clearly interoperability protocols are part of that.  However,
it seems that the notions of intellectual property (don't capitalize it!?)
might conflict with broader notions of a Technological Commons, wherein
Amenity might be more easily found.

But I ramble.

Carl

"Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
                --Cleon

"Any specific prediction we make about upcoming inventions is bound to be
wrong--even if we are talking about our own work. Our predictions are really
just our aspirations. As we learn more and follow our heart and our
instincts, our aspirations change. Eventually our work leads us to a place
we may never have imagined. But it's usually completely different from
anything we ever predicted. And much better, always much better."
                Carver Mead


-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]]On
Behalf Of Owen Densmore
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:57 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [FRIAM] Brian Arthur's Article: Is Info Revolution Dead?


Here is Brian's article:
        http://www.backspaces.net/files/IsInfoRevolDead.html
..and a panel held w/ Brian, Andy Grove, and Larry Lessig:
        http://www.backspaces.net/files/IsInfoDeadPanel.html

The reason I find this paper so central today is that it discusses the
initial rapid success of new "clusters" of technologies, followed by a
bust after the initial over enthusiastic embrace of the technologies,
followed by the maturation period .. which is the period of real wealth
creation and success.

We find ourselves in this third period.  I feel we can look at a few of
Brian's observations and incorporate them into both our Venture
strategies and our understanding of what will be most likely to succeed
in this new phase.  I argue, for example, that the first boom is one of
Intellectual Property, while the second boom is one of Intellectual
Capital .. i.e. know-how over invention.  I think Brian's thesis also
supports the observation that new IT build out in the nooks and
crannies (like casinos and the state judicial system) are likely to be
quite successful, especially if they laterally integrate with nearby IT
infrastructures.  Thus casinos with hotels, judiciary processing with
the DMV.

Owen

Owen Densmore           451 Camino Don Miguel     Santa Fe, NM 87505
Work: 505-983-6305      Cell: 505-570-0168        Home: 505-988-3787
[hidden email] http://complexityworkshop.com http://backspaces.net


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
http://www.redfish.com/friam

[John Hellier]

A few thoughts-

Arthur talks about businesses re-architecting
themselves. For information technology to really
succeed, businesses are actually going to have to
understand themselves. They are going to have to think
of themselves as a whole organism where an action in
one part affects all. Software specification is
frequently done in isolation from the whole. There
is a lack of understanding of how information created
and manipulated in one area affects information in
other areas.

In comparison to past revolutions, none of them had
the requirement to model the environment they operated
in. None of them had to understand business process to
work. They all changed the environment they operated
in. Does this mean the software should change the way
people do business? Yes, it should change how people
do business but it must be based on far more accurate
models of the business process. Which in turn requires
that each company can determine their business
processes.

I don't think that copy-writing of software is that
important. I see the real value of software coming
from the customization of software to specific
business needs. This will require more adaptive
software rather than the one size fits all. The
revenue model will then be based on customizations
rather than shrink wrap.

The information revolution will certainly continue,
but how successful it is will depend on a number of
things including how well we can define business
processes, how well we can translate these processes
into software and how well the software can adapt to
the user.

John