...or What do we mean by improvement?

Improvement generally means a measurable positive change in something over time. What constitutes “positive” and how do we measure the change for a given “something”?

To examine these questions I'll start by considering “improvements” in technology. Stafford Beer argues in the opening chapter of his book Brain Of The Firm (2nd edition 1981) that technological change can be characterised as a series of “S-shaped curves”[1]; Taking a given capability such as the ability for humans to travel at speed, each successive technology starts from a slow lead-in where it's not necessarily an improvement on those that came before, and then accelerates overtaking the earlier solution, and finally flattening off as the limitations of practical reality come in to play. The horse-and-cart gives way to the train which gives way to the car which gives way to the aircraft. The curve of a given technology is then overtaken by the next one and so on leading to a combined “Envelope Curve” of ever increasing capabilities.

Scott Wilson in a 2008 blog entry on computer memory and storage [2] discusses similar technology S-curves and his anticipation of the next one based on several announcements from IT hardware research efforts at IBM, Daresbury and Glasgow and HP. I have included the diagram he uses to illustrate the curves which in turn is taken from work by Laird Close at the University of Arizona:

S-Curve diagram by Laird Close, University of Arizona

Beer, Wilson and others illustrate how the S-curve model of technological advancement has been borne out through successive generations of technology. From the horse to the space rocket, from punched cards to 'Racetrack' nano-magnetic memory.

Combining Wilson's analysis of storage and memory technology with the model discussed by Beer we are currently in what Beer refers to as a “Critical Decision Area” whereby the new technologies have not yet reached a level necessary to overtake the earlier generation and the businesses and organisations which depend on the progress for growth are faced with the unknowable dilemma of whether or not to invest resources in an as-yet immature technology - which may yet still to deliver the hoped-for results.

Corollary to this, where technology evolves technology also fails - certainly if we take the metric of popularity or uptake rather than raw capability we can see far more complex patterns in the technological lifecycle with old technologies being swept aside by new developments, new technologies warring for position to replace them, and sometimes even old technologies re-emerging after a dip.

Another question which presents itself is one of needs; do people really need a given technology and does it improve their lives? This question can only be answered once the technology exists to some level of maturity and has achieved penetration into society. How does that in turn translate into demand and thus popularity?

The following graph illustrates perceived trends in popularity of several technologies for delivering cinematic material to domestic consumers:

Taking the graph from left to right we start with the emergence of video, the format war between Betamax and VHS, where despite Betamax being of “superior” quality it lost out to VHS most likely for reasons of convenience such as VHS's longer tape-length. [3] Shortly the gap between the two in terms of popularity had grown to the point where Betamax was irrelevant to all but niche customers and disappeared from public view. The pattern repeats itself with the recent Blu Ray/HD-DVD format war - and we will doubtless see further battles between Blu Ray and digital downloads. I'm more than willing to bet that downloads will win in the long run, however technologies can and do make “comebacks”. For example the UK cinema industry went from a dire period of decline in the 1980s only to return to popularity following the widespread introduction of multiplex cinemas in the early 90s up to a point in 1999 where attendance was higher than it had been in 1971.[4]

Thus I would argue that while technological capabilities improve over time there are many highly complex factors at play determining the relative success of those technologies; marketing, cost, convenience and features, alongside broader social factors; politics, economics, trends in cultural activity, public perception and mood to name a few.

Finally, coming back to Beer's argument of the advancement of transport, taking for example a journey from central London to central Paris. History has seen the train-ferry-train option of yesteryear overtaken by the car-ferry-car option (as rail congestion increased and roads improved), only to be overtaken once more by the train upon completion of the channel tunnel. The tunnel and associated high-speed rail links also mean that the journey by train is considerably faster than that by air if one takes into account the additional time spent travelling to and from the airports, checking in, security and walking for miles around the airport terminal complexes.

Approximate journey times between London and Paris (2009)

Ultimately this boils down to a question of implementation - the train, while physically slower than an aircraft becomes a faster proposition due to the overall implementation of its supporting infrastructure in this particular context.

Footnotes
1. Stafford Beer, Brain of the Firm 2nd edition: John Wiley & Sons, 1981, p5-13
2. Scott Wilson, Beginning of the next memory S-curve? 1 May 2008
3. Dave Owen, The Betamax vs VHS Format War, May 2005
4. Joe Hicks & Grahame Allen, A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900, December 1999, House of Commons Library, p26