INF5210 Information Infrastructure Class #11 Bootstrapping & Gateways Ben Eaton Dan Truong Le 30/10/2013
Discuss this weeks reading for class discussion • Hanseth & Aanestad (2003) - Design as bootstrapping • Hanseth (2002) – Gateways: just as important as standards
Towards a Theory of Information Infrastructures A Theories of Information Infrastructures (Evolution & Design) Process Strategies Architecture Governance Assemblage Theory Complexity Actor Network Reflexive Science Theory Modernisation
Aims • To provide you with concepts to describe and explain: ▫ How to establish an installed base on an II
Overview 1. 2 Key Challenges of IIs 2. Building an installed base 3. Bootstrapping 4. Gateways
2 Key Challenges of IIs 1. Getting them to establish themselves ▫ Building an installed base 2. Managing them once they become established ▫ Evolving/extending/developing an II
2 Key Challenges of IIs 1. Getting them to establish themselves ▫ Building an installed base 2. Managing them once they become established ▫ Evolving/extending/developing an II
2) Managing an established II • Once an II does take off, one of the issues is managing it size • It appears to begin to behave in an autonomous way ▫ Characteristics: reflexive & self destructive ▫ It can develop in undesired directions It can become fragmented (e.g. Android Operating System) Users can become locked in ▫ It can become increasingly complex Thus increasing or adding to the problems it was trying to solve in the first place!
2) Managing an established II cont. • What are the possible solutions? • Standardisation ▫ As a coordination mechanism ▫ But it can become very stifling For example by limiting innovation ▫ Inflexibility due to standardisation • Gateways ▫ Loose coupling of modular components • Generativity ▫ Allowing functionality to develop at the edges & not in the core End to end (Saltzer et al 1984, Lessig 2002) Programmable terminals (Benkler 2006) Zittrain
2 Key Challenges of IIs 1. Getting them to establish themselves ▫ Building an installed base 2. Managing them once they become established ▫ Evolving/extending/developing an II But todays focus is how to get IIs to become established.
Establishing an II – part 1 • What are we trying to encourage? ▫ Adoption! ▫ To kick start network effects Gain a critical mass of users in a network So that it becomes self propelling Positive Network Effects : Value for each user increases with each new user (Shapiro & Varian 1999)
Establishing an II – part 2 • What problem are we trying to solve? ▫ The significant risk of being the first user of a technology Potentially very expensive mistake for first user Risk is that no one else will join the network ▫ E.g. Microsoft Windows Phone 8 • The Question ▫ Is it only "rational" to join a network when there are already significant numbers of users? ▫ or can the II have inherent value (other than the potential value of the network) in order to attract initial users? An easy but expensive way is to subsidise initial users
Establishing an II – part 3 • Background theory - Granovetter / Schelling Model ▫ Observations Pedestrians crossing the street at a red (pedestrian) light A few people cross after the first person crosses After a few people crossing then "everyone" crosses • Why this distribution of people deciding to cross the street? ▫ individual preferences amongst an audience of potential network users vary ▫ small changes in this distribution of preferences can have large effects on adoption, e.g., if everyone preferred that no traffic could be seen before crossing - then no one would cross but if people felt that if individuals were already crossing, and that traffic was light, then they would cross
Establishing an II – part 4 • A solution to the critical mass problem ▫ rather than "buying" (subsidising) first users ▫ identify and address the preferences of initial "lead" users ▫ Hence Bootstrapping Hanseth & Aanestad (2003) - Design as bootstrapping The use of gateways Hanseth (2002) – Gateways: just as important as standards
Bootstrapping – Part 1 • Bootstrapping as the process of ▫ Enrolling the first users ▫ Drawing upon them and the technology to extend the network
Bootstrapping – Part 2 • Examples (from Hanseth & Aanestad 2003) ▫ Treating Heart Attacks - Telemedicine in Ambulances Example of success Gradual step by step enrolment until "critical mass" achieved ▫ "Medical Records" - EDI Infrastructures Example of failure Initial success, but then the next step (jumping to X400 based system) was too big a step to gain enrolment
Bootstrapping – Part 3 • Lessons learnt from the paper: ▫ Information Infrastructure user preferences are more complex & harder to address than in Granovetter & Schelling model ▫ User preferences have to be arranged and shaped according to many different attributes ▫ Recommendations for infrastructure design & build …. See next slide …..
Bootstrapping – Recommendation #1 ▫ Target the users' Motivation to use & knowledge of the new II – e.g: Better to target more motivated individuals than less motivated individuals as "lead" users Better to target initially individuals who have good knowledge of tech solution and the use that it is being put to
Bootstrapping – Recommendation #2 ▫ Consider the impact of the context of work environment on adoption, e.g: Are there sufficient resources (time & money) available to allow people the opportunity to adopt? Better to target initial use areas that are simple rather than complex - Complexity implies risk of failure Better to target initial use areas that are non critical rather than critical - The cost of failure is higher if use of solution fails in critical areas
Bootstrapping – Recommendation #3 ▫ Consider the nature of the technological solution itself, e.g: AVAILABILITY: of designers & support personel to users SIMPLICTY: best just match the actual practice in the first instance, rather than bells & whistles in terms of extra functions COSTS: it's got to be cheap enough! FLEXIBILITY: instantiations of practices vary & evolve FUTURE ORIENTED: to prevent being trapped in a solution that cannot change to match evolving practices
Bootstrapping – Recommendation #4 ▫ Appropriate use of coordinating institutions, e.g: In the development and implementation of large scale IIs - Institutions for coordination & governance (e.g. standardisation bodies) can help In the development and implementation of smaller scale IIs Flexibility and a "light touch" may be requires Coordination and governance institutions can suffocate progress
Gateways – part 1 • Hanseth (2002) – Gateways: just as important as standards • Gateways can be seen in different contexts ▫ Gateways as a bridge between different II solutions allowing cross compatibility interaction between two solutions ▫ Gateways as an enabler for 1. Bridging and migrating users from an old II solution to a new II solution cf Cha 4. From Control to Drift - The Economics of Standards 2. Experimentation and allowing for the evolution of the best solution cf - Hanseth 2002 Gateways - just as important as standards
Gateways – Part 2: Overview of Hanseth 2002 Gateways - just as important as standards • Paper describes the ascendency of the use of the internet within Nordic Universities amongst other competing network solutions • Multiple different network solutions competing for dominance, e.g: ISO / OSI packet X.25 based connetion solutions Top down standards driven approach A "complex" technology IP based connection less solutions Much for flexible evolutionary approach A "simple" technology
Gateways – Part 3: Overview of Hanseth 2002 Gateways - just as important as standards • The need for bridges ▫ To allow for interconnection of university networks in Scandinavia ▫ Elements that made up the bridge Nordunet Plug - as "converged" network backbone Application Protocol Gateways - to allow different application solutions (e.g. email) to interact Dual stack solutions on PCs & Workstations - allowing user to use different technological solutions easily • Politics ▫ Each solution had its supporters and detractors - it was hard to drive the adoption of either by " policy“ ▫ ISO/OSI solutions delayed by standardisation effort ▫ IP solutions gradually improved, became more widely adopted, before it became dominant
Gateways – Part 4: Overview of Hanseth 2002 Gateways - just as important as standards ▫ Lessons Learnt from bridging approach Allowing Experimentation & Learning Allowed different competing solutions to be tried out and ultimate the "survival of the fittest" (Evolutionary Approach) ▫ User Involvement & Democratic Design Process Allowed the user to drive which solution "won" as they were able to adopt the solution that best matched their needs
Recommend
More recommend
