Transcript Bootstrapping Network Technologies

From systems to networks
- tools to infrastructures
- design to installed base cultivation
Ole Hanseth
Challenges
• Doesn’t take off: No value for few users –
everybody waits for the others.
• If it does – it becomes autonomous:
– Lock-in
– Develops in undesired directions
– Increases the problems one tried to solve
(reflexive/self-destructive)
Strategies (some ideas)
• Flexibility
– The duality of standards
– Minimalism, modularisation (loose coupling)
• (=gateways)
• Use the installed base as resource
– Bootstrapping
• Build upon existing installed bases
• Build an installed base (users before functions)
– Avoid lock-ins: Gateways
Granovetter/Schelling model
• Ex: Dying seminar, crossing a street
• Our preferences depends on others
actions
• Preferences vary
• Processes depends on distribution of
preferences
• Small changes may have large effects
Growing networks
• Manipulating preferences
• Arranging users
• Bootstrapping
’Bootstrapping’
• Enclocypedia: ’She bootstrapped herself to the top’ – to
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
manage on one’s own
Lifting yourselves by your hair
Booting a computer
Implementing a programming language
Language learning
Making a tool/network by means of the tool/network
”Deliver a better today, rather than promise a better
tomorrow”.
Late adopters adopt because the others have already
First adopters must adopt for another reason
Experiences in health care
• Big bang projects never fire (too complex)
• Pilots and demonstrators die
• Very hard to move form bi-lateral links to
network
Identifying and arranging
preferences
• Multi-dimensional
• Personal, individual
• Use areas and situations
• Technological aspects
• Coordination/governance structures
• Arranging preferences and dimensions
(dynamically)
Bootstrapping Network Technologies
• Select motivated and knowledgeable users
• Simple, non-critical, non-complicated use
areas where no large organisational
changes are required.
• Select simple, relatively cheap and well
supported technical solutions.
• Users first, then functionality/technology
Individual/personal preferences
• Motivation, attitudes towards
technology
• Knowledge about technology
Aspects of use areas and
situations
• Resources
• Benefits of communication within a small
network
• Critical/non-critical activities
• Complexity of tasks and work practices
• Organizational changes needed
Aspects of technology
• “Distance” between users and
designers/vendors
• complexity
• costs
• flexibility
• “allied with the future”
Coordination and governance
• Structures and institutions have to be
established (bootstrapped)
• “Standardization bodies”
– Technology (protocols)
– Work practices/procedures (protocols)
• (The Internet is an example to learn
from in this respect as well)
Interdependencies and conflicts
• Highest benefits:
– Radical change,
– critical situations
– complex technology
• Advance along one dimension before
another
• In general: use (enrol more users) before
technology
Design strategy 1
• Start with
– simple, cheap, flexible solution
– small network of users that may benefit
significantly from improved com. with each
other only
– simple practices
– non-critical practices
– motivated users
– knowledgeable users
Design strategy 2
1. Repeat as long as possible: enrol more users
2. Find and implement more innovative use, go to
1
3. Use solution in more critical cases, go to 1
4. Use solution in more complex cases, go to 1
5. Improve the solution so new tasks can be
supported
Lock-in and gateways
• Large networks are never made from scratch –
•
•
•
•
•
extending and improving the installed base
Backward compatibility
EPR: institutionalised (standardized network) of
practices
Fit/support existing practices (otherwise no
bootstrapping)
Makes a larger network – harder to change
Gateways between old and new networks:
connected and different
Changing networks &
infrastructures
• Extensions – transformations
• Changing large infra: Changing individual
modules
Change strategies
• “Flag day”
– Everybody changes at the same time
– Requires tight coordination
– Coordination must be possible
– Now needs for technological support
• Continuous
– No coordination needed
– Needs technological support
Example 1: IPv6
• Extending functionality (range)
• Continuous change
• Tunneling (=gateways)
Example 2: E-mail
• Many gateways : Internet, AOL, nets
based on proprietary prot( cc:mail ++)
• Permanent solution
• Not trivial (addresses)
Example 3: NORDUNET
• Nordic universities: Establish interoperability
–
–
–
–
–
Many different networks:
HEPnet: physicists (CERN), DEC
EARN: ?, EDB-centres, IBM
Internet: computer science,
....
• Strategy: Common protocol - OSI !!
• Different interests – all users wanted a quick solution,
•
•
•
i.e. based on their existing technology
OSI – slow progress, complicated, …
Flow of money was about to be closed
Had to find a pragmatic solution! Fast!
Solution
• Tried out various strategies and
technologies, ..
• Two important events occurred:
– IBM wanted to transfer EARN to the univ.
– A Cisco-router that also was running DECnet,
IBM, X.25 over IP appeared
The NORDUNET Plug
IBM
DECnet
IP
Gateways
• Important because
– Quick, efficient, well working solution
– Compromise: Everybody’s interests were
accounted for
• Were considered traitors in the rest of
Europe
Further developments
• Made connections to other networks easy
– install SW on own computer
– Especially relevant for Internet
– dual stack solutions
• Caused transition to Internet
• Important reason behind Scandinavia’s
early adoption of the Internet