Sorry, Seth, There Ain’t No “Dip”

Seth Godin in his book, The Dip, gives good advice about quitting and sticking. However, unintentionally he creates a myth that there is a deviation in the power curve toward the cost benefit singularity. Bluntly, there ain’t. Once you commit yourself to the swing you will have to follow through whether you hit the ball or do not. The question to be asked before you start: once you pass through the singularity, will you have enough resources to push you all the way to pluralarity (call it ubiquity or commoditization). If you cannot make a successful projection to that accomplishment, you are going to take a dive not a dip.

A cost-benefit singularity (that’s the cost benefit to the customer) is a black hole, either you enter it or you don’t. As in baseball, you need a smooth power curve as you lead in, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through. And don’t forget a smooth power curve as you lead into your run to the base, contact and a smooth power curve as you follow through.

A complete life cycle.

No Dip. If you take one, its bad physics and you’ll hurt yourself.

More about the physics here.

Advertisements

Danger or Pluralarity?

Thinking about pluralities I was motivated to dig out and dust off my copy of Nicholas G. Carr’s book, Does IT Matter?: Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. In this piece of pulp Nicholas droned on about the commoditization of hardware and software and the end of the IT industry.

What Nicholas was witnessing in 2003 was the plurality of one generation of hardware and software. Everybody had an office suite and enterprise software suite.  And rightly, they were no longer providing a competitive advantage. What Nicholas was experiencing was a complete lack of imagination with regard to the opportunities the pluralarity presented: the next generation of innovation leading to the next singularity.

In hind sight it was funny how Nicholas shook everybody up, but I didn’t find myself looking for a new career, I found myself looking for innovation and in many respects we found it in Open Source and Web 2.0 Social Software.

I have also found that Relational Database technology is reaching plurality and its limitations are becoming more pronounced as application developers test its limits. It simply does not have the flexibility we need. I’ve seen the future in the Associative Model of Data and have found it fits the Zachman Framework better than current technologies. The need is growing and this architecture fits it.

What Nicholas and all of us should have still been reading was this book:

Peter is still the authority when it comes to experience based instruction.