When J Presper Eckhert and John William Mauchley of Pennsylvania
University conceived the idea of a fully programmable electronic
computer in the early 1940s, they were proposing a vision of
computing that many thought was impossible.
Even media giant RCA passed up the opportunity of becoming a
contractor for the project, thereby losing the chance to be in on
the computing industry at the ground floor. Many laughed at the two
young academics but, with a small team of engineers, they built
Eniac, heralded as the first all-electronic computer designed to be
reprogrammed to solve different problems.
There have been other visionaries in the history of computing,
as our Unsung Heroes feature (Computer Weekly, 28 June) clearly
demonstrated. And then there are Robert Noyce and Jack Kilby, who
independently invented the microchip. Vinton Cerf has been heralded
as the father of the internet for his work on internet-related
packet technology, including TCP/IP. Tim Berners-Lee gave us the
World Wide Web. These are industry-changing technologies that have
caused us to move in new directions, and the people that introduced
them deservedly stand as icons in computing history.
But where have these visionaries gone? Tim Berners-Lee gave us
the web 16 years ago. Which icons of inventiveness have emerged
since then? And if there are none, why?
"It is hard to recognise the visionaries when they are there,"
says David Patterson, president of the Association for Computing
Machinery. Many people lauded as visionaries by the computing
industry in hindsight were dismissed as crackpots when they
originally present their ideas, he says.
Anyway, says Nigel Shadbolt, vice-president of the British
Computer Society and professor of artificial intelligence at the
University of Southampton, the nature of the computing industry has
changed. "There is an interesting thesis that visionaries are as
rare as they have always been, but what we have had is more
collaborative groups working together," he says, adding that this
trend can be found in everything from gene sequencing through
developments in IT and even nanotechnology.
"The idea of group-based computing is there to support the
notion of distributed 'co-laboratories' of scientists working on a
global scale confronting big problems," says Shadbolt. "That is the
only way a lot of modern science can get done. Nobody owns the big
physics anymore."
Small groups of individuals are often best suited for making
breakthrough discoveries, but larger groups supported by
collaboration technologies can be particularly good at refining and
enhancing such discoveries. After all, large groups of individuals
do not have access to the laboratory equipment and other resources
needed to drive a challenging research propositions such as quantum
computing.
But even where small groups of individuals are involved, things
are changing. Martin Illsley, director of the European research and
development team at Accenture, says researchers are becoming more
specialised. "Many years ago, PhDs were broad in nature because it
was an open area," he says. When the computer was in its infancy,
it was easy to talk about computing technology as a discrete PhD
subject. "These days we are down to very small specialist pockets
of PhDs, so if you want to do something, you have to pull together
teams of specialist knowledge."
This has its advantages, in that we understand each subset of a
subject more precisely. On the other hand, it makes the production
of IT visionaries much more difficult, because the work among these
small research groups is more collaborative.
Refinement and the discovery of discrete new technologies
sometimes go hand in hand. For example, we marvel at the fact that
we can now fit the power of a whole Eniac onto a silicon chip, but
this happened both because of a groundbreaking discovery (the
integrated circuit) and successive rounds of miniaturisation.
Generally, one follows the other to create a step curve in
innovation.
An initial groundbreaking discovery prompts a frenzied cycle of
development - what Jonathan Smart, developmental systems theorist
and president of the Acceleration Studies Foundation calls the
"diffusion curve" - leading to the refinement of the technology
into stable, commercially acceptable products.
The technology is then refined still further, as products are
enhanced and prices lower. Eventually, the technology and
associated products mature into a commodity, and then a new
technology emerges to begin the cycle once again.
Many industry commentators attribute more value to the diffusion
curve where a technology is commercially applied than to its
initial invention. "The real innovation comes when it is widespread
enough that a whole range of people start to use it for things that
were never conceived of," says Steve Prentice, chief of research,
hardware and systems at analyst firm Gartner. "I would separate the
initial technological development from the innovation that arrives
from a better understanding of it."
One of the best examples of a technology that has become a
foundation for unanticipated innovation is the internet. The
visionary aspect of the internet lies in its ubiquity, says
Prentice, who identifies peer-to-peer and podcasting as examples of
this innovation.
Prentice cites the mapping of the human genome as another area
where the real innovation comes later. We now understand the
pattern of hereditary information encoded in our own DNA, but we do
not understand what it all means or what we can do with it. That is
where innovation will emerge, he says.
No wonder, then, that Brian Levy, group technology officer at
BT, singles out Steve Jobs as one of the more recent visionaries in
the IT world. Jobs did not develop any groundbreaking technologies
himself (he came up with the idea of the graphical user interface
for the Apple Lisa after visiting Xerox Parc). He bolted together
existing technologies to produce the Macintosh, and more recently,
the iPod.
"You probably cannot find one thing that Apple has got that was
not already there, but it is in the integration of that, and the
vision that Jobs has to bring them together in that way," says
Levy. "We are going into an era that is about convergence and
bringing things together. It is about making things accessible for
people in new ways."
Part of the diffusion curve that Smart discusses involves the
recombination of existing technologies in easy-to-use ways. When we
think about the time between major computing hardware developments
such as the integrated circuit, which appeared in the early 1960s,
and quantum computing, which is still 20 years from commercial
implementation, it is no wonder that the miniaturisation afforded
by Moores Law - that computing power doubles every 18 months -
becomes so important, and that convergence plays such a large part
in innovation today.
Shadbolt's experiences suggest that the UK is a hothouse of
invention. He says his research budget has increased substantially
over the years.
In contrast, the American Association for the Advancement of
Science has condemned the Bush administration's budget for 2006,
which it says will put research - especially defence department
research - below the rate of inflation for the first time in a
decade. This is significant because the Defense Department has
often driven technological developments in the US. It produced
technologies from the computer to the atom bomb and the internet,
for example.
Patterson also lambasts the US administration for cutting back
on pure academic research, but adds that the changes are even more
insidious. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa),
which carries out much defence research in the US, has shifted its
focus, he says. "In the past, the focus was on dual use - things
that would help the military and help industry," he says, arguing
that the focus is now solely on military applications.
Even in industry, we should take reports of huge R&D budgets
with a pinch of salt, warns Patterson. It is important to separate
the research from the development. When Microsoft says it will
spend $6bn on R&D this year, how much of that involves
long-term research, and how much is simply short-term product
development?
While industry watchers mull over this problem, Smart says
something bigger is afoot. In the past, most innovation has been a
top-down affair. The computer industry was predicated on presenting
solutions to solve problems that people did not know they had. It
took some years for the creators of the Eniac to develop a market
for their machines, because people did not understand what they
were for. Now, says Smart, that top-down innovation is changing as
developments such as convergence make the diffusion curve more
complex.
"IT suppliers used to be the drivers behind technology
innovation, and supplier relationships used to be the drivers
behind diffusion," he says. "The idea of collaborative networks of
consumers is changing that. Today, it is more driven by the
customer. It is more of a pull than it is a push, and that fits in
with this idea of a network society that we are moving to."
This move from a top-down, supplier-driven innovation model
within the diffusion curve to a bottom-up, customer-driven one is
attractive. Smart's view may be a little Utopian - IT suppliers are
still far from passive - but nevertheless, customers are learning
how to use and apply technologies in more innovative ways. If he is
right, and the trend continues, it heralds a switch.
In the past, we have lived within a modernist industry in which
one voice dictates to a passive audience. Smart is describing a
new, postmodern ideal in which multiple voices participate, and in
which customers take part in a dialogue that drives research
forward. Perhaps that is the most innovative development of
all.