The regular discussion
of various points in technology and management is one of the reason I enjoyed
working at Citigo Vietnam. My project leader was so prominent in software
industry with deep knowledge in the field. He gave me a lot of lessons in
different matters: team management, career orientation, entrepreneurship, successful
high tech product. Interestingly, some of our banters could only be enlightened
now in the MSD class.
A stark example of its
is the relation between compatibility. My project leader was trying to convince
me that the more compatible my product is, the more profitable it is. It seemed
reasonable but I was not totally understood why. This problem is once again
raised when I read “The soul of new machine”. I wrote it down to better
remember:
The high compatibility
between computers in IBM's 360-line family "guaranteed for a long time to
come IBM's continued predominance in the making of computers for profit".
·
But the understanding
of the problem only comes out when the lecturer introduced some concepts in “The
Economics of Network Industries” (Shy, 2001). This is his propositions: Aggregate industry profit is
higher when firms produce compatible components than when they produce
incompatible components.
·
The firm with smaller
market share under compatibility earns a higher profit under compatibility.
The idea of
combinatorial innovation accounts in part for the clustering of waves of
invention that appears whenever some new technology becomes successful. The
ubiquity of one program can act in turn as a platform for other programs; for
example the mutual complementarities between Twitter, Bit.ly, and Facebook.
Much of what is termed Web 2.0 computing can be thought of as leveraging
complementarities of different technologies that in turn creates clusters of
innovation.
Reference
No comments:
Post a Comment