The title of this post is also the title of my thesis on IBM’s 3D Internet initiative, of which I would like to share some of the discussions as my final post as a TN guest author. My arguments are within the frameworks of Network Society & Innovation Strategies, and User Driven Vs. Community Driven Innovation.
Network society & Innovation Strategies
The network society described by Castells (2000) in his book; The Rise of the Network Society gives insights to the convergences of the telecommunication, microprocessor, and computer industries as the facilitators of connecting entities in the network society in three stages of diffusion e.g. automation, experimentation, and reconfiguration. And, that openness, equality and grass root commitment were the drivers of the diffusion. Currently, we are in the stage of reconfiguration where technology acts on information, and the network have assimilated diversification and stratification of culture.
The innovation strategies of Christensen (2003 & 2004) speak of the basis of competition and performance gap and surplus, and how product architecture either proprietary or modular should be compliant with the gap or surplus of performance in market demand, for positioning to capture the largest market share. And, how new comers trying to innovate for a sustaining trajectory are almost always bound to fail, and should revert to low-end market solutions for a disruptive trajectory. And, furthermore of new-market disruptions which compete in a nonconsumption market and therefore the market have to be invented from scratch.
Now, the current nonconsumption market of a metaverse development platform or the 3D Internet and experimentation conducted by corporations in Second Life to unlock and invent a profitable market are battling two issues; the openness of the network society and current performance gab in the market to establish a rock solid metaverse development platform for users to experience unlimited user generated content in a high quality graphical environment.
The performance gab in the market would suggest a proprietary solution to the metaverse development platform but I believe at the expense of mass market adoption and counterintuitive to the openness of the current network and web platform. So, my argument is that currently there is a catch 22 in effect, of either attending the performance gab with a proprietary solution or the network society with a modular solution. The latter risking to drive users and businesses away because of instability and lack of performance and the former also risking driving users and businesses away because of inconvenient usability issues of integrating that solution with existing activities.
User driven Vs. Community driven innovation
Another key discussion of the thesis is the notion that community driven innovation reduces the period of negotiating a new market and combat the nonconsumption of new-market disruptions which I believe characterize the current initiatives to establish a standard metaverse development platform for a future 3D Internet and experimentation of services, largely conducted in Second Life and to some extend also in There.
The argument is that the user driven innovation paradigm is fading because it mainly drives the sustaining innovation trajectory of old established markets, because the users in the innovation process are the customers of the client – not the non-customers of the client. Thus, a community of users constituting numerous non-customers are a key for future success.
Furthermore, the argument is that moving into a 3D Internet environment of mediated communication by avatars are facilitating easier access to valuable information from many non-customers to driven the negotiation of a new-market disruption, and ultimately market success.
To end this post, I hope to gain valuable insights from comments to include in the thesis before its turned in next month.