Determining the Root Cause for the Slow Adoption of Innovative Concepts and Products

By TMCnet Special Guest

Robert Chavous, Graduate Student, East Carolina University

 

The Segway is an innovative transportation product. Conceptualization of Segway occurred in 2001 (C. Vallone, personal communication, March 30, 2007). Vallone is a public relations representative for Segway, LLC. Vallone indicated that Segway is a private company. Per Vallone, in 2002, Segway’s first customer groups were commercial entities. November 2002 marked the first public sale of the Segway by way of Amazon.com (News - Alert), and in late 2003 and early 2004, dealerships were established (Vallone). In 2004, Segway expanded its dealership base to greater than 100 dealerships in the United States and more than 60 international dealerships (Vallone).

Media hype surrounded the pending announcement of the Segway. Dean Kamen, the inventor of the Segway, considered it comparable to the car replacing the horse and buggy.

(Roeper, 2003). Roeper (2003, p. 1) writes “You’ll recall there was an insane amount of hype about a year before it was unveiled to much fanfare in December 2001 - including a fawning 4,236-word article in Time magazine that compared Kamen to Willy Wonka and Thomas Edison.” Roeper (2003, p. 2) continues “When the Segway was introduced two years ago, I just couldn’t imagine how a 70-pound, $5,000 glorified electric scooter was going to change the world, Yeah, it was intriguing in a techno-geek kind of way, and I could imagine postal worker and warehouse employees and your friendly neighborhood eccentric or your random spoiled rich kid using them - but it didn’t appear to have the across-the-board appeal. Older people, residents of cold-weather cities, the tens of millions who can't afford to spend several thousand dollars on some battery powered gizmo that tops out at 12.5 mph - they'd never become customers. And how were Segway users going to co-exist with pedestrians, bicyclists, et al.?” (Rogers, 1962/2003) defines adopter categories as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards. Vallone (2007) noted that the Segway is now moving into the early majority stage.

Research indicates that there are other contributors to the slow adoption of the Segway. The Segway motion affects the physically challenged spatial cognizance (McDaniel, 2002). Safety problems can negatively affect the adoption rate of a product. In 2003, Segway LLC placed a recall on 6,000 transporters because of potential falls due to low battery (Said, 2003).

Concerning barriers, Vallone (C. Vallone, personal communication, March 30, 2007) mentioned that Segway did not originally provide product trials or training, but this has changed, as a safety video displaying proper use is now available. Vallone mentioned that there are customer behavioral changes that need to occur in regards to safely operating the Segway.   The company is now targeting niche markets (e.g.) police and security (Vallone). When asked about demographics of the consumer public, Vallone supplied the following information: most used by males 40-60 years old; higher income brackets; liberal in a political sense; and not very religious.

Rogers (1962/2003) writes about the classification of the Segway, and indicates that policymakers influence is the determining factor for adoption of the innovative Segway. Although the focus of this paper is on slow adoption of the Segway in the United States, it is worthwhile to consider the global adoption rate. Roger’s remarks are in line with the ways countries around the world observe Segway. In Amsterdam, Netherlands, the Royal Traffic Agency (RTA) considered the Segway as a moped; therefore, the police banned it from use (Associated Press, 2007). The Dutch government is now considering lifting the ban on the Segway providing that it can pass a safety review (Associated Press, 2007). The fact that the innovative Segway does not have a braking system as described by the Dutch government poses a question of safety (Associated Press). In Germany, tests commissioned in 2005 by the German Federal Highway Research Institute and conducted at the Technische Universität - Kaiserslautern that resulted in a recommendation to allow the Segway to have access with limitations on sidewalks, bike paths, and low-traffic roads (Technische, 2006). In the United States, police departments in most large cities have proven that the Segway is a good policing tool, and Segway LLC has made a large municipal sale to the city of Chicago (K. Gordon, 2006). At the City of Manhattan Beach, California, the Staff Report directed the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance restricting the use of Segway and like products from certain areas of Manhattan Beach (R. Uyeda, 2006). The Staff Report allows for disabled citizens with state disability placards and government officials access these areas while using a Segway or like products (R. Uyeda, 2006). This research supports Rogers' explanation that policymakers can influence the adoption of the Segway.

Kamen’s belief is that growth of cities decries a flaw in the global modes of transportation (Shanks & Buchan, 2007). The Segway’s battery-powered system acted as a counter to the pollution created by gasoline and diesel transportation methods (Shanks & Buchanan). Kamen is devoted believer in social innovation and is a driver for world change by means of mixing sociological and technological innovation (Shanks & Buchanan). People have tendencies to drive to locations less than five miles from their starting point; therefore, Kamen reasoned that low emission automobiles can decrease pollution, but traffic remains congested (Shanks & Buchanan).  Kamen made the mistake of believing that if given the opportunity to move short distances on the Segway, then people would give up the walking, which is a carryover from the Dark Ages (Shanks & Buchan). Kamen visualized cities rampant with Segways instead of walking and other means of transportation (Shanks & Buchan). Kamen’s premise that people would ride Segways than walk has proven to be the fallacy in the bust of the Segway: a great number of people walk for health purposes (Shanks & Buchan).

Rogers (1962/2003, pp. 147-148) states “THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY Technological determinism is the belief that technology causes changes in society. This viewpoint implies that technology is somehow autonomous (that is, outside of society). Obviously, it is not. An opposite viewpoint, called social determinism or the social construction of technology, argues that technology is shaped by social factors. Technology is a product of society, and is influenced by the norms and values of the social system.”

Now, consider whether Rogers (1962/2003) explanation applies to the slow acceptance of IPv6 in the United States. As aforementioned, Segway and IPv6 have a commonality in that both are providers of transport in some form. IPv6 transports data, and Segway transports people. An innovative concept, IPv6 provides sufficient addressing capabilities and more features for the Internet on a long-term basis as compared to IPv4 that has a small amount of addresses left, and Network Address Translation (NAT) supports its continuing existence. In 1995, the Internet Engineering Task Force began consideration of IPv6 (Deering & Hending, 1995). In 2004, the U.S. government issued a Request for Comments, and a section of the document was concerned with whether the government should mandate private sector migration from IPv4 to IPv6 (A. L. Bement & M. D. Gallagher, 2004). Now it is 2007, and only a very small percentage of U.S. companies have migrated from IPv4 to IPv6. The Burton Group advises that there are not any good technical reasons to invest in or migrate to IPv6; however, Bechtel embraces IPv6 (C. Garretson, 2005). The U.S. government mandates that all federal departments must have IPv6 operational by June 2008 (Garretson). Research reveals that Roger’s explanation does not apply in the case unless the U.S. government mandates the private sector to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6.

The influence of policymakers is a determinant in the Segway’s adoption rate.  As far as the United States government is concerned about forcing the private sector to migrate from IPv4 to IPv6 or install native IPv6, policymaking is dependent on the individual entity. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) develops standards for the Internet; however, this group has no policing power.  A case in point is that the IETF IPsec standard for IPv6 is optional. In 1999, the IETF asked to comment about the scalability of IPv4 and the migration to IPv6 (Ladid, 2003). It is 2007, and the majority of private entities have not migrated from IPv4 to IPv6. In 1999, there were many IPv4 to IPv6 conversion options, and this led to confusion (Ladid). A point of interest is that new technology is driving the need for more address space. AT&T (News - Alert), MIT, and others were allotted Class A addresses and Class B and the total addresses in the initial assignments was 75% of the total addresses available on IPv4; therefore, all that was left to be allotted were some class C addresses (Ladid). In 1999, there was not a specific date as to when the IPv4 address pool was expected to dry up (Ladid). Network managers were encouraged in 1999 to start planning for the IPv4 to IPv6 migration (Ladid). In 2003, there were approximately 1 billion IP addresses remained. In contrast, at the time of the c|net NEWS article in 2003, it was estimated that the address space in IPv6 allows every living person to have 1,000 IP address (Charney, 2003). In 2006, estimation was made that with IPv6, there is enough IP addresses for multi- billion of IP addresses per each square of land (CISCO SYSTEMS, 2006).

Conclusion:

There are 8 mistakes that an organization can make in respect to change as follows (Kotter, 1996):

--Overabundance of complacency

--Lack of guiding coalition

--Underestimating visionaries

--Vision underestimates by powers of 10

--Obstacles blocking view of future

--Wins at different times

--Finished before accomplished

--Anchored in loose sand

The use of the word organization in this context of this paper goes beyond the normal use in a corporate setting. Both the Segway and IPv6 are intermingled in this closing dialogue as applicable. NAT unintentionally drives complacency. Network managers can have the attitude “that if it is not broke, then why fix it?” The lack of a guiding coalition is evident in that there is not a forceful lead by any organization to spur the private sector in a major planning and move to IPv6 as a national plan. Some are involved in a state of turf protection, and some are off on their on tangent. There is no national sense of urgency of need for IPv6. In the case of Segway, it appears that there have been too many direction shifts that were not planned. Kamen has a good idea in the balancing mechanism, but it is put to use in an application that may be useful but not needful on a wide scale. Underestimating visionaries definitely applies to the Segway. There was a vision of the future that was hopeful but not realistic. Technology can not be forced on people. Product secrecy and timing of introduction of the product evidently played a role in not getting a good pulse of the people and there adoption level for the product. In the case of IPv6, the vision is there but complacency is masking the vision. It is thinking inside of the box. The Segway vision fits in the sense that the expected number of sales were less in multiple powers of 10 lower than the anticipated higher amount of unit sales. As far as IPv6, the longer the wait for migration from IPv4, the longer it will take to catch up. One year away from technology seem like a 5 year setback.  Both IPv6 and Segway have blocked views due to obstacles.  The vision to move to IPv6 is blocked by complacency due to NAT. Segway’s view has been blocked or marred due to safety issues and voluntary recalls. IPv6 is lacking in the wins area, but the U.S. governments mandate for 2008 may be the beginning of more wins. Segway is in a constant battle for acceptance. Any wins have been masked by lack of sales. The finished before accomplished doesn't apply to IPv6 as it is barely out of the gate in the United States and is still a work in progress. Segway was a let down from the start due to hype that it was the greatest thing ever invented that was going to change the world. IPv6 is still a work in progress, but before it is completed, there may be future protocol that replaces it. The Segway and IPv6 are both anchored in loose sand. Both had poor starts and both are still suffering from sow adoption in the United States.

The final question is: What is the root cause for the slow adoption? Looking at both of these entities, a cohesive understanding of the market is missing. With the Segway, understanding the customers' needs is missing. The desire to fulfill a perceived need does not sell products. Hype may help to sell a few products in the short term, but it will not sustain sales for the long-term as people tend to tire from repetition. Segway also suffers at the whims of policymakers. In the case of IPv6, finding the root cause for slow adoption is similar to untangling fishing line. There are so many organizations, user companies, vendors, and manufacturers; however, there is no real controlling authority. Think back to the days when the Federal Communications Commission provided regulations to radio and television stations. What is called hacking, bots, pharming, and phishing on the Internet is analogous to operating outside of regulations in the aforementioned environment. Foul play included large fines, loss of license and even prison time. Without a cohesion of all the groups involved with the Internet in the United States, one can rest assured that with IPv6 it can only get worse.

Finally, the Segway and IPv6 are subject to slow adoption, but the root causes are similar in some instances but not the same.


References:

Associated Press, (2007, January 2). Netherlands ban Segway scooters from public roads. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from FOXNEWS Web site: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240721,00.html

Associated Press, (2007, March 22). Dutch government ponders lifting Segway ban. Retrieved April 26, 2007, from FOXNEWS Web site: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,260162,00.html

Bement, A. L., Jr., & Gallagher, M. D. (2004). Docket No. 040107006-4006-01 Request for comments on deployment of Internet Protocol, version 6. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from National Telecommunications and Information Administration Web site: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/frnotices/2004/IPv6RFCFinal.htm

Charney, B. (2003, July 28). U.S. shrugs off world's address shortage. C|net News. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from c|net NEWS Web site: http://news.com.com/2100-1033_3-5055803.html

CISCO SYSTEMS, (2006). IPv6 migration planning: Help getting there from here. Cisco Systems (News - Alert). Retrieved April 28, 2007, from CISCO SYSTEMS Web site: http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/gov/IPv6_Jan06.pdf

Deering, S., & Hending, R. (1995). Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) specification (RFC1883). Retrieved March 30, 2007, from RFC Index Search Engine Web site: http://www.rfc-editor.org/?cgi-bin/rfcsearch.pl

Garretson, C. (2005, October). Bechtel says move to IPv6 is all about business. Networkworld. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from NETWORKWORLD Web site: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2005/101005-bechtel.html

Gordon, K. (2006). Segway personal transporter [Abstract]. Law and Order, 54(12), 36-38, 40-42, 44-45. Abstract retrieved April 27, 2007, from National Criminal Justice Reference Service Web site: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=238448

Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ladid, L. (2003). IPv6 on everything: The new Internet. 3G Mobile Communication Technologies, Conference Publication No. 477, 317-322. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from IEEE (News - Alert) Xplore Web site: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu/iel5/7359/19962/00923561.pdf?tp=&arnumber=923561&isnumber=19962

McDaniel, V. (2002). Hi-tech scooter debuts in Sacramento. Is it AT? At Journal, 45, 2. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from ATJournal Web site: http://www.atnet.org/news/2002/mar02/031501.html

Roeper, R. (2003, September 30). Segway's flawed design goes beyond the recall. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from Columbus Childrens Hospital Center for Injury Research and Policy Web site: http://www.columbuschildrens.com/gd/applications/research/InjuryResearch/segway/media/Chicago%20Sun%20Times%20Segway.pdf

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: FREE PRESS. (Original work published 1995)

Said, M. (2003, September 27). Safety first segway offers software upgrade after several riders fall. San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from Columbus Childrens Hospital Center for Injury Research and Policy Web site: http://www.columbuschildrens.com/gd/applications/research/InjuryResearch/segway/media/SF%20Chronicle%20recall.pdf

Shanks, M., & Buchan, A. (2007). The Segway and social innovation. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford, Palo Alto, CA. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from SHL Stanford Web site: http://shl.stanford.edu:3455/TenThings/1789

Technische Universität-Kaiserstautern. (2006, April). Segway in public places (No. FE-82.0288/2005/in commission of the German Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) represented by the German Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt)). Kaiserslautern, Germany: A. Darmochawl & H. Topp. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from Segway Web site: http://www.segway.com.hk/Documentation/Regulations/gruenereihe67_segway_v5lq.pdf

Uyeda, R. (2006). In Dolan, G. (Ed.), Discussion regarding electric personal assistive mobility devices (EPAMD) in the City of Manhattan Beach. Manhattan Beach, CA. Retrieved April 27, 2007, from City of Manhattan Beach Web site: http://www.citymb.info/agenda/2006/Ag-Min20060919/20060919-15.pdf