Technology innovation vs. innovation in technology use

Sometimes we need to be reminded that we are fallible when it comes to predicting the future. It is also important to distinguish between our opinions about what WILL happen and our opinions on what MIGHT happen. Statements in the first category can be verified or falsified, if we just wait and see what actually is the state of the world at that future moment in time. As to statements in the second category, it is more difficult to falsify them, as the the way the world unwraps is not determinsitic. Remember how the betamax video tape format was regarded as technically better than the VHS format but nonetheless VHS conquered in the marketplace.

This holds also for uses of technology. One would have thought that the music industry would have spent some time thinking about how the MP3 format might be used outside the industry itself. It seems that they did not realise that they were releasing a tool that could cut into their own business -- until Napster broke onto the scene.

There is a growing awareness that even for existing technology we may be unable to predict how it may reach larg-scale use. The web itself is an example, and also what we now call Web 2.0.

Some latecomers are now trying to get a handle on the irritating phenomenon of unexpected technology use. The US defence establishment organised recently a meeting to discuss how NOT to be surprised by technology evolution and use.  They emphasize that it is not only new and improved technologies that may pose a military threat, but also new uses of existing and proven technologies.

The challenge of technology warning is further complicated by differing pproaches stemming from strategic versus tactical actors. While nation-states enerally implement longer-term strategies that leverage technological advances, ndividual adversaries (and insurgents) tend to emphasize short-term tactical ctions, often exploiting existing technologies in novel ways. The blurring of he boundary between technological advancement and innovative application of xisting technologies further complicates this challenge.

Even though this is expressed from the perspective of technology in the military area, the same reasoning hold for the civilian sector. Instead of "nation-states", think "big corporations", and instead of "individual adversaries", think "small, agile start-ups" -- and then you have a good representation of what we have seen in IT in the last decade.

Some support for this thesis is found in a Wall Street Journal article from 2008, which looks back at what predictions were made in 1998, and whether the predictions were fulfilled or not.

Now that the results are in, it's clear that the prognosticators were on safest ground when predicting details about the raw capabilities of high-tech devices. But the seers had a harder time predicting how this fast-changing technology would alter people's habits at work and play.
...
At times, the forecasters were simply too serious for their own good. One predicted that people would use the Internet to monitor their light bulbs and order replacements right away if a bulb burned out. We could do that, but why bother? It's nowhere near as much fun as circulating YouTube videos of crazy wedding dancers.

As Silicon Valley inventor and technologist Judy Estrin gamely conceded in 1998: "What technology can deliver and what people want are two different things."

Corroborating circumstances are described in a recent Wired article, with examples of where simple technology can be put to valuable use:

By traditional military standards, the MQ-1 Predator isn't much of a plane. Its top speed is a mere 135 miles per hour. It has an altitude ceiling of 25,000 feet. It carries only two 100-pound Hellfire missiles. It has a propeller. By comparison, an A-10 can travel 420 mph, cruise at 45,000 feet, and carry up to 16,000 pounds of bombs—not to mention a 30-mm gatling gun. An F-16 can reach a blistering 1,500 mph (Mach 2), climb to more than 50,000 feet, and back up its 20-mm multibarrel canon with six missiles.

All three of these aircraft are used for surveillance and close air support. But more and more, the military is relying on the unmanned Predator. In the past two years, it has logged more than 250,000 flight hours, nearly all of them in combat. It has been deployed to the Balkans, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

Why, if manned planes are so superior, is the Predator saturating the combat market? Because military aircraft are experiencing their own version of the MP3 effect.

Over the past few decades, the armed services—like many industries—have been radically changed by the Internet and other modern communications technologies. Now that the military can digitize and share information quickly, engagements are conducted differently: Greater emphasis is being put on "situational awareness," the ability of remote commanders to know what's happening on a battlefield at all times. This in turn has altered what the military looks for in a plane, much the same way small digital files changed what music fans value in a recording.

(Robert Capp: The Good Enough Revolution: When Cheap and Simple Is Just Fine, Wired Magazine: Issue 17.0, Aug 2009)

We should be more attentive to how simple and existing technologies can be used in innovative new ways, rather than always looking for not-yet-existing to provide the solution.