The vertical axis worries me not a little, as any progressivist "ascent of man" suggestions do, especially if there is not a great deal of historical depth in it... isn't "effectiveness" highly contextual? What does the implication of increasing effectiveness mean here?

I understand Patrick's concern, but somehow the vertical axis seemed intuitively correct to me. In my mind it refers to the relative effectiveness of a business using a particular paradigm. That is, Henry Ford's original mass-production factory would have been hugely effective at the time, but would be fairly ineffective (relatively speaking) now.

I wonder a little bit about the shape of the sigmoid curves. It makes sense that they peak and then go down again (right part). But why do they start at a certain level and then first go down before going up? Yes it makes a more visible yellow overlap with the next curve, but I think that they should start flat. Maybe: start flat and very thin, then go horizontal becomming thicker (normal), and then start to go up?

Mark: as you describe it, I can see effectiveness (maybe) following the curve, but not the vertical along a continuum and across phases. Are we better now at being effective as organisations than then? I'm really not sure.

Three quick points:
As I see them, the shape of the curves is useful but in an illustrative rather than a quantitative manner.
One of the ah ha elements is that the curves could be interpreted in multiple ways - representing society, sectors, industries in a particular region or individual firms. Thus a small firm like Cognitive Edge (looking for brownie points!) could be at level three while another firm (Laggard Six Stigma Services.inc) could be stranded in level one or two.
The world globalization in the third curve is slightly problematic. For too many of us, globalization represents container ships full of junk steaming across oceans to fill Wall Marts; for economic, environmental and even ethical reasons, I hope this is not what we reach for in level three. On the other hand, virtually connected firms that build on local expertise to serve global markets creates an entirely new and more responsive/appropriate version of globalization.

Christian

I think the initial dip is something that's very commonly seen in the introduction of new ideas/technologies - as Dave referred to the other day when talking about Crossing the Chasm.

It strikes me that it corresponds with initial enthusiasm among those at the forefront of the technology - related to the raw technology itself. then, as it fails to ignite teh world immediately, it drops away until it re-emerges as products that inspire with the "what" rather than the "how."

I remember writing articles about VoIP 12/13 years ago - how it was going to change the world of telecoms, etc. All went quiet for a few years once it became apparent that while the technology might be there (although it actually wasn't quite) until eventually Skype and Gizmo arrived.

Initial high enthusiasm, dip, return and growth...

2 Gartner Analysts (Fenn and Raskino) have just published a book called Mastering the Hype cycle, which explains how that cycle is actually made up of 2 curves, one of which is the S curve and the other (the peaky bit on the left)is a result of the 'initial enthusiasm' effect described by Tony. The hype cycle is the consumer reflection of the Crossing the Chasm Model. In their book, the S curve is shown as being flat at the beginning.

The book goes on to describe how to use the model to make better decisions about innovation.
(Mark Raskino is a former colleague of mine)

Thanks all - expect another iteration later today EST
That will link Moore and Handy - I was working on that yesterday so nice to see others have combined. I will buy the book

How about the x-axis. Wave 1 lasts 80 years, wave 2 lasts 20 years. Does that imply wave 3 lasts for 5?

Dave - The model is in intuitively right but I'd make one suggestion. Can we have some of the narrative from the blog post incoporated in the model? What's landscape/context in which these ideas operate? Otherwise it seems that they rise and fall of their own accord.

Kia ora Dave

I commented on Clark Quinn's post that linked to your post here. In the comment I made a prediction about society which embraced the emergent nature of the way societies (tend to) work.

I see the yellow transition links in your sigmoidal graph(s) as a manifestation of this emergent nature of oganisations/societies/groups-of-people.

You mention in passing, complex systems and their adaptability. Your idea, "sense-making, incorporating complex adaptive systems", and the emergent nature of communities, points to only one idea that I can bring to mind, and that is the concept of a complexity system per se.

Complexity systems do tend to be robust, but they can expire or be destroyed, either through an outside agent or from an inability to adapt from within (or both). My guess is that this is what happens to organisations that, as you say, are past the yellow zone. Though some will certainly fail due to the sheer cost of failing, this is also almost certainly brought about by a lack of ability to adapt quickly enough.

I also feel that failure can be caused through such organisations not being sufficiency oriented enough, as well as perhaps not being proficiency seeking. This latter quality links directly to what you say about praxis makes perfect being no longer a joke.

Catchya later
from Middle-earth

Dave,

1. Maybe "Marginal Effectiveness..." on the Y-axis?

2. Don't know if this is relevant, but I find it interesting how new communication & transportation technologies (along w/ the associated standardization activities) were key enablers of these three waves...I've started calling this aspect of the third wave "hyperconnectivity" in presentations I've done on the topic.

3. Seems like the early "hype" phase of each of these waves rarely involved much discussion of the dangers/risks that were likely to emerge from the change...