[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Amen to that. We do a very elaborate RFP/Proposal/Contract
cycle in out business. My very job is to sort RFPs looking
for such things. We have to bid competitively, so price
and features make all the difference. I love innovation
and the edge as much as the next guy, but I don't think
it wise to be the first penguin into walrus infested waters.
OTOH, one can get into situations of historical context where
one is obligated to waste anything but time. Different market
conditions prevail. The dot.bomb boom was a faux market perception.
People thought they had to buy in to be in. It was a costly
mistake, but it generated technology and competence, and
suddenly, historical conditions impact market conditions
and a value emerges for that technology and that
competence. This is why predicting the use of a technology
is dicey if one is targeting narrow spans of time. It is
possible to predict that certain technologies will emerge
based on the technical trends and probable payoffs, but
timing emergence is loose. The impact of the unknown unknown
is the wildcard of information ecosystems evolution.
len
From: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@acm.org]
On 21 May 2002 at 9:11, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Because anything truly new is also unrecognizable. It
> will sit on the shelf while the insanely restless play
> with it and adapt it. Over some period of time they
> will get results that others will covet and emulate.
Or blow the budget on something that may never gain acceptance. This
popped up this morning as a rather painful reminder of the trends and
bandwagons the industry keeps jumping onto:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2002/05/20/squander.htm
|
