3-01-92

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT: STRATEGY, SYSTEMS, AND TECHNOLOGIES

JAVA: AN “S” CURVE

CASE STUDY
Bernard H. Boar

INSIDE

What is Java? What is the WEB PC? What is the Attack? Where are Java and the WEB PC on
Their “S” curves? What is the New Performance Limit? How is Java Riding the “S” Curve?
What are the Diffusion Prospects for Java? How Will the Defender Defend? What about the
Problem of Know-How? What about Thrashing? Will Java and WEB PC Complete a Suc-
cessful Attack? When Should We Jump?

INTRODUCTION
Through the latter half of the 1990s the management of business is be-
coming increasingly complex and difficult as virulent hyper-competition
accelerates. Industry turbulence is being driven by factors such as global-
ization of competition, slow growth in developed countries, changing
customer demographics and value expectations, bypass competition
from suppliers, relentless cost pressures, and the advent of new electron-
ic distribution and sales channels. All of these factors are conspiring to
expedite the need to reshape and renew all aspects of company value
chains. As never before, it is now urgent to concurrently improve the ef-
ficiency of all business functions and processes while personalizing ser-
vice to the customer.
Information technology is critical to addressing these challenges. All
typical business functions — such as inventory management, logistics,
sales management, store operations, financial management, and human
resources management — can be made more efficient and effective by
redesigning each function to take full advantage of existing and emerg-
ing information technologies. Dramatically improved information move-
ment and management technologies
are increasingly the means to achiev-
ing improved business ends (cus- PAYOFF IDEA

tomer satisfaction, market share, and
revenue growth). Electronic com-
merce, in particular (as personified
by multimedia, the Internet, kiosks,
* r
The primary tool of technology substitu-
tion and diffusion theory is the “S” curve.
In this article, the author illustrates the
use of “S” curves through a case study of
Java’s substitution attack on traditional
PC architecture.

Auerbach Publications
© 1999 CRC Press LLC
interactive television, and EDI), is becoming the new mandatory infor-
mation movement and management means of touching, retaining, and
selling to extremely fickle customers.
While information technology provides sophisticated tools to over-
come the challenges of our times and configure a new, vibrant, and suc-
cessful organization, it also demands making procurement decisions
under escalating uncertainty and risk. There are more information tech-
nologies, vendors, and choices than ever before. No sooner is a decision
made than a new technology is announced that apparently makes yester-
day’s champion obsolete. Users and technologists insist that the new
challenger must be adopted immediately if the company is to remain
competitive. Systems integration becomes a nightmare as the system con-
figurations continue to mutate.
So, information technology presents the IT executive with a pressing
dilemma. On one hand, it certainly is a significant means to winning the
hyper-competitive wars of the late 1990s. On the other hand, IT itself is
undergoing such rapid change and is presenting such discontinuities that
it is increasingly difficult to make selection decisions. What can be done
to increase understanding of the evolution of information technologies
so that the addition of new technologies and the retirement of dated
technologies can be done in an orderly manner? Can the strategic logic
of technological change be understood so that the apparent chaos can be
mastered and optimum decisions be made as to what will and will not
be in IT portfolios? Is there a way to know when it is the ideal time to
adopt a new technology?
The unanimous answer to these questions is “yes.” A discipline of
study called technology substitution and diffusion provides a theory of
how technologies substitute for each other. Embedded in the theory are
tools called “S” curves that can be used to assist in making the difficult
decisions. Understanding and applying technology substitution and dif-
fusion methods are critical to making the best possible judgments regard-
ing if and when to jump between information technologies.
By prudently applying technology substitution and diffusion theory,
IT executives can take command of the technology change conundrum
and alleviate the ceaseless procurement turmoil. Consider the following
example.
One of the most exciting and hyped technologies to come along (in
an industry that swims in exciting and hyped technologies) is the pro-
gramming language called Java from Sun Systems. Mr. Eric Schmidt, for-
merly Chief Technology Officer of Sun Systems, said, “Java is bigger than
the Internet.” A few months later, Mr. Steven Ballmer, Executive Vice
President of Microsoft, was compelled to say in an interview, “The notion
that the PC is dead is the topic of crazy minds.” What is going on here?
 This is the beginning of an instance of technology substitution and dif-
fusion. Java and a related technology called the WEB or network PC are
attacking the defending fat client PC technology based on the products
of Microsoft and Intel (often referred to as the WINTEL architecture or fat
PC). This attack is of interest to the IT executive because, while the Ja-
va/WEB PC environment alleges many advantages over the incumbent,
it is only at the beginning of its “S” curve. Nevertheless, IT executives are
constantly reading about Java and are coming under pressure to intro-
duce it. What is the strategic situation?
An “S” curve analysis of Java will be performed. This will illustrate
how “S” curves can be used to structure the technology substitution and
diffusion debate within a company and provide needed insights so that
optimum (as opposed to emotional) decisions can be made. A tight tech-
nology substitution and diffusion analysis of Java will be done by asking
a series of “S” curve questions and answering them. Although the related
technology of WEB PC is not necessary in order to use Java, it will be in-
cluded in the analysis. Java alone does not obsolete the fat PC, but Java
plus the WEB PC do.

Q1. WHAT IS JAVA?

Java is an objected-oriented programming language, similar to C++, that
was specifically designed for distributed computing environments. It is
stored on a server computer and is dynamically brought to the requesting
client computer at the time of demand. It is compiled into an intermedi-
ary state called byte code that permits it to be portable across client ma-
chines. A virtual Java machine runs on each client computer. It interprets
the byte code at the moment of execution.

Q2. WHAT IS THE WEB PC?

The WEB PC is an information appliance designed to work in an Internet en-
vironment in which software and content are delivered to the PC at the mo-
ment of demand. Unlike current PCs (in which all application software is
stored on the PC), the WEB PC is basically a dynamic execution environment.

Q3. WHAT IS THE ATTACK?

Exhibit 1 shows three types of substitution attacks. Java alone is a function
attack on the WINTEL fat PC architecture. The software at the client site
can be dynamically loaded onto the fat PC that can run a virtual Java ma-
chine. When the WEB PC is added, the attack becomes an asset attack. It
becomes an asset attack because the Java/WEB PC can do everything the
fat client can do, plus it offers tremendous improvements in portability,
simplicity, and cost of software distribution and administration.
EXHIBIT 1 — A Substitute Attack. A Substitute Attack Against an Established
Product May be Done at the Function Level, Product Level, or Asset Level.

Q4. WHERE ARE JAVA AND THE WEB PC ON THEIR “S” CURVES? WHAT IS THE NEW
PERFORMANCE LIMIT?
Both technologies are in the pioneer plus stage (see Exhibit 2). WEB PCs
may progress much more swiftly because they are simple appliances that
do not have the learning curve and skill requirements of Java. New fea-
tures that are needed to make Java an operational technology are an-
nounced monthly.
The improved performance elements that a Java/WEB PC provides
over a fat client Microsoft/Intel environment are the following:

• simplicity of use
• dynamic software distribution
• simplified software administration and customer support and service
• portability
• openness
• less-expensive client hardware

Q5. HOW IS JAVA RIDING THE “S” CURVE?

One area in which Java has urgently needed performance improvement
has been execution speed. Since its introduction as a slow, interpretive
language, Java’s “S” curve execution performance has been improved
 EXHIBIT 2 — “S” Curve. An ‘S” Illustrates the Evolution of a Product’s
Performance Against a Specific Functional Limit. (Source: Boar, Bernard
H. The Art of Strategic Planning for Information Technology. John Wiley &
Sons, 1993.)

through source code compilers, just in compilers, and byte code compil-
ers. This is an excellent example of how a technology improves as it
rides the “S” curve.

Q6. WHAT ARE THE DIFFUSION PROSPECTS FOR JAVA?

Java’s diffusion (see Exhibit 3) will show a gradual pattern for the follow-
ing reasons:

• Customers will have to be convinced of its value proposition. In par-

ticular, they will be concerned about security, speed of client execu-
tion, and ability to interface with legacy technologies.
• Programmers will have to be taught not only how to program in Java,
but how to design Java applications and systems. The latter will
prove challenging as delivering software on demand in small applets
is quite different from a resident software model.
• The infrastructure for Java is not yet in place. Virtual Java machines
need to be resident on client machines and, equally importantly,
high-speed communication is necessary as an infrastructure require-
ment. The architecture does not work if the client-to-server connec-
tion is not broadband.
• For mobile users, Java may prove not to be a viable alternative in the
foreseeable future.
 EXHIBIT 3 — Market Diffusion. The Market Shares of Both the Attacker
and the Defender on an “S” Curve Reverse as a Function of Time.

Q7. HOW WILL THE DEFENDER DEFEND?

WINTEL proponents will vehemently defend their dominant logic (see
Exhibit 4). Among other things, (1) they will aggressively incorporate
Java into their systems to confine the attack to a function attack; (2) they
will raise fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) about the immaturity of Java
and the lack of business applications; and (3) they will carry out a func-
tion defense by emphasizing the strengths of their platform (i.e., security,
performance, and leverage of existing knowledge and technology). Inev-
itably, many of the arguments that mainframe proponents made against
the PC, WINTEL proponents will now make against the Java/WEB PC.
This defense is proving particularly successful against the WEB PC be-
cause of the dramatic price reduction of the PC, improvements in soft-
ware maintainability, and the desire of the user community to maintain
and extend their investment in Windows technology.

Q8. WHAT ABOUT THE PROBLEM OF KNOW-HOW?

This will prove to be a major drag on early progress (see Exhibit 5). Per-
forming client/server functions in a Java/WEB PC architecture will differ
from performing those functions in a fat PC environment. Aggressive
prototyping and pathfinder projects are called for to gather and then
propagate the necessary knowledge.

Q9. WHAT ABOUT THRASHING?

Thrashing (see Exhibit 6) is not an issue in the foreseeable future. While
there will be challengers to Java (such as Inferno from Lucent Technolo-
gies), the architecture is the same.
 EXHIBIT 4 — Dueling “S” Curves. A Substitution Situation Occurs When
a New Product on a Different “S” Curve Challenges an Incumbent
Product.

Q10. WILL JAVA AND WEB PC COMPLETE A SUCCESSFUL ATTACK?

This author believes that they will gradually displace the fat PC architec-
ture. The advantages offered by the new architecture are sufficient to
overcome the dominant logic of the existing one. A good way to test if

EXHIBIT 5 — Know-How Curves. Each “S” Curve Has a Shadow Know-

How Curve that Reflects the Cumulative Knowledge Regarding How to Ex-
ploit the Technology.
 EXHIBIT 6 — Thrashing. If One Jumps “S” Curves Too Often, Within a Finite
Time Period, One May be Worse Off Than If One Did Not Jump Curves at All.

this is true is to invert the attacker and defender. As shown in Exhibit 4,

pretend that Java and the WEB PC are the defenders against a WINTEL
attack. Would that attack be successful? If the Java and WEB PC environ-
ment had 14 years of maturity on its side, as does the Microsoft fat client
environment, would a fat client PC environment be an attractive alterna-
tive to a mature Java/WEB PC environment?
This is only applicable for people who have slow communications.
This author believes, though it will certainly be messy and emotional,
that a normal technology substitution and diffusion event will be wit-
nessed. In the next year or two, experimentation will be seen with Java
and WEB PCs, including the fat client proponents’ attempt to position
Java as a complementary technology (function attack in Exhibit 1). All of
the arguments will be made for the dominant logic technology, which
will raise a great deal of FUD. Nevertheless, the benefits of portability,
cost, simplicity, and administration control far outweigh the early prob-
lems. As Java rides its “S” curve, it will win market share and, not surpris-
ingly, there will be a period of time in which both Java and the
incumbent PC technology are both growing.

Q11. WHEN SHOULD WE JUMP?

This is a question of balancing one’s business needs against the “S” curve
positions of Java and WEB PCs. Certainly, one can begin experimenta-
tion. If one is by nature a conservative user of IT, moving applications to
Java now will put one at the front of the curve. Conversely, if one sees
opportunities to drastically improve automation or electronic sales
through this architecture, one has a business need that motivates recon-
sideration of a normal posture. When to jump is an individual business
decision that is tempered by an “S” curve understanding of the situation.

SUMMARY
In this section, “S” curves have been applied to analyze Java technology
and the associated technology of WEB PCs. What has been seen is that
much of the rhetoric about these technologies, as well as about the Mi-
crosoft/Intel defending technologies, is fully explainable through an “S”
curve analysis. It is this author’s conclusion that Java will prove to be a
successful attacker.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION

Business success will be more and more closely linked with one’s selec-
tion and deployment of information movement and management tech-
nologies. When information technologies were used for just backroom
operations, who did it better did not make the difference. As information
technologies are used increasingly to touch and influence the customer,
technology choice can make a strategic difference.
The recommendation is simple and straightforward. Technology selec-
tion and adoption are too important to be left to the emotional preferenc-
es of the staff and the competing screams of the vendors. An anchor of
reason is necessary. Technology substitution and diffusion theory pro-
vides such an anchor.
It is strongly recommended that IT executives take the following ac-
tions:

• Train staff in “S” curves. The entire training can be done in a half day.
Supplemented by the readings in the bibliography, “S” curves can be
understood in a day.
• Insist that new technology proposals include an “S” curve analysis.
Have the staff perform the “S” curve analysis across time (i.e., the sit-
uation today, six months from now, and a year from now).
• Insist that suppliers present information in terms of “S” curves. Ask
them what they are attacking, what kind of attack is it, and how gath-
ering the know-how can be accelerated. In addition, how will they
overcome the dominant logic?
• Have some team members take the role of the defenders. Let them
explain how they will defend against the attack. Why will the attack
fail?
• Reverse the roles of the attacker and the defender. Could the defend-
er as the attacker win? Could the attacker as defender uphold its
dominant logic?
 • Keep the debate on adopting new technologies centered on “S”
curves. This will eliminate the emotionalism that is common in tech-
nology substitution situations.

All of this is remarkably simple to do and will radically improve a

group’s ability to make insightful decisions about new technologies.

CONCLUSION
In the coming years, the rush of new technologies offering promise to
businesses will accelerate. While the risks and rewards associated with
technology decisions both increase, time windows for making these de-
cisions will shorten. People will want to know now. They will want to
know why what is being done is being done. Whether one chooses to
implement the new technology or defer, some interest group will want a
cogent explanation.
In the chaos of business in the late 1990s, “S” curves can provide an
anchor for a fast and substantive analysis of emerging technologies. They
supplement existing methods and provide a strategic perspective that
many popular approaches do not consider. The efficacy of the technolo-
gy selection process will be dramatically improved with the incorpora-
tion of “S” curve analysis.

Bernard “Bernie” Boar has published several books on the topics of IT strategy and architec-
ture, and has been published in both IT and business strategy journals. He speaks frequently
at leading industry conferences on IT strategy, IT management, and IT architecture. Mr. Boar
is Director, Strategic Solutions for RCG Information Technology in Iselin, NJ. He can be
reached at 732-194-0508 or via e-mail: bboar@rcgit.com.