As part of a futuring class, I am to make a future prediction. I am thinking that I am going to investigate the field of parallel processing. I have chosen this field because I think it is very interesting, esp. with the emergence of multi-core technology. Given the scope of this field, I think that i am going to try and narrow it down and focus on programming and development, and how might it change over the next 10 years.
I am sure that I will be blogging on other topics throughout this series, and as such, I need a convention. I will adapt the following approach. I will label the title of the blog "A Future Prediction" followed by a more descriptive qualifier. I will try to make each blog stand-alone, but that might be more difficult than I suspect. However, after you have read this introduction, you should be able to skip around a bit. Please realize that as you jump around that you are going to get exposed to different angles of this problem.
OK - with that out of the way - let's go have some fun and see what' out there!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Predictions: A Success and a Failure - How do they compare?
What does Olson's prediction of PCs not making it into the home environment and Gordon Moore's Law have in common? Well, it appears that in both cases a "swag" or a guess was taken. It seems that neither individual used a lot of data and they operated from their instincts. In Moore's case, he was right on the mark. Olson missed on his prediction and later stepped down from leading Digital into the future.
I thought that this was interesting and very different than Dr. Halal's approach that says you use the data from various sources and build models to make more accurate predictions. I tend to agree with Halal, but Moore's Law is a great example of how a brilliant person can have insight into the future without using a lot of data.
These two approaches are very different. As stated in our text book - when dealing with economic data, most of the predictive models tend to fail - regardless of complexity.
I am left with the following question: How do we reconcile the insights of brilliant people and also leverage predictive models? What do you think? Please leave a comment as I would to hear your thought - maybe you can help me mold my own.
I thought that this was interesting and very different than Dr. Halal's approach that says you use the data from various sources and build models to make more accurate predictions. I tend to agree with Halal, but Moore's Law is a great example of how a brilliant person can have insight into the future without using a lot of data.
These two approaches are very different. As stated in our text book - when dealing with economic data, most of the predictive models tend to fail - regardless of complexity.
I am left with the following question: How do we reconcile the insights of brilliant people and also leverage predictive models? What do you think? Please leave a comment as I would to hear your thought - maybe you can help me mold my own.
A Successful Prediction - Moore's Law - Part 3
Moore's prediction that states the number of transistors on a chip will double every 2 years continues to hold true. Moore suggested that this might end when the size of the transistor reaches that size of atoms, but believes that this won't happen until 2020. However, other futurists seem to disagree. For example, Kurzweil suggest that this Law will hold true long after 2020 - he believes that a new approach will emerge and allow this trend to continue.
So - how did Moore's prediction come about? Here is a an article that discusses that question specifically. The highlights are as follows. Essentially Moore has noticed the number of components on a chip where doubling each year, and from there he concluded this trend would continue. He later revised this doubling to every two years. However, Moore notes that he didn't realize the significance of his discovery. In fact, there is a great comment found here that says "Moore says he now sees his law as more beautiful than he had realised. "Moore's Law is a violation of Murphy's Law. Everything gets better and better."[13] "
So - how did Moore's prediction come about? Here is a an article that discusses that question specifically. The highlights are as follows. Essentially Moore has noticed the number of components on a chip where doubling each year, and from there he concluded this trend would continue. He later revised this doubling to every two years. However, Moore notes that he didn't realize the significance of his discovery. In fact, there is a great comment found here that says "Moore says he now sees his law as more beautiful than he had realised. "Moore's Law is a violation of Murphy's Law. Everything gets better and better."[13] "
A Successful Prediction - Moore's Law - Part 2
In looking at a successful prediction, Moore's law is investigated. Moore's law states that every 2 years the number of transistors on a computer chip will double. Here is a great graph that shows the trend over the last 30 years taken fromWikipedia. There is a common misperception that Moore said 18 months vs 24 months - the graph shows how the data supports the 24 months.
A Successful Prediction - Moore's Law - Part 1
In looking for a successful prediction, I thought I would look at Moore's Law. Gorden Moore is one of the Intel founders and a brilliant individual. To paraphrase - Moore theorized that every 2 years the number of transistors would double on a computer chip. This would translate directly into increased speeds. Here is the direct quote taken from Wikipedia
“The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.[1] ”
This quote was stated in 1965 and later updated to every 2 years in 1975. In part 2, I will include evidence that supports this statement.
“The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year ... Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years. That means by 1975, the number of components per integrated circuit for minimum cost will be 65,000. I believe that such a large circuit can be built on a single wafer.[1] ”
This quote was stated in 1965 and later updated to every 2 years in 1975. In part 2, I will include evidence that supports this statement.
A Failed Prediction: The Computer: Part 5
This post concludes the series on a failed prediction. Specifically, the Digital company leader - Olsen was investigated. Actually, it was his quote around his believe that the personal computer would made significant inroads in the consumer market.
It's difficult to determine why Olsen believed this. Some believed that Olsen just didn't like the PC and this impacted his judgement. It seems very reasonable that a CEO might use what we call "gut instinct" to lead a company, and that Olsen just missed an opportunity. It also seems reasonable that Olsen didn't see the necessary infrastructure in place to allow the PC to flourish. For example, the PC has capitalized on information sharing via the Internet. Maybe Olsen failed to believe that this complexity of allowing computers to network across the world would be in place. However, it seems clear that any CEO should have a process in place to respond to inputs and try and determine future opportunities to avoid missing the opportunities of large financial gain.
It's difficult to determine why Olsen believed this. Some believed that Olsen just didn't like the PC and this impacted his judgement. It seems very reasonable that a CEO might use what we call "gut instinct" to lead a company, and that Olsen just missed an opportunity. It also seems reasonable that Olsen didn't see the necessary infrastructure in place to allow the PC to flourish. For example, the PC has capitalized on information sharing via the Internet. Maybe Olsen failed to believe that this complexity of allowing computers to network across the world would be in place. However, it seems clear that any CEO should have a process in place to respond to inputs and try and determine future opportunities to avoid missing the opportunities of large financial gain.
A Failed Prediction: The Computer: Part 4
In looking at a failed prediction, I was looking at the quote from Ken Olsen who said "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."— Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment, in 1977. In this blog, investigation into why this was said is investigated.
Two websites are of particular interest when looking into this quote. First, one side disputes this quote saying it was taken out of context and that Ken Olsen was saying that he didn't want a computer controlling his home, while others say that he meant he didn't want a central computer in his home. A defense of Olsen's comments can be found here.
The second group of folks say that Olsen made that comment and he believed it - and that he guiding the company away from the personal PC. Gorden Bell confirmed that Olsen said that quote and believed that Olsen just didn't like the small computer idea. That evidence can be found here.
Olsen was eventually removed from his position of power at Digital having missed the PC trend and the associated opportunities. I couldn't find documentation to see why Olsen believed the PC wouldn't succeed, or why he didn't lend credit to the ideas of his staff. A reference to the staff showed that they did have the vision though - here is a quote from a web page
In this case, it appears that a personal bias against something lead to the missed prediction by the leader of a company. Despite listening to his staff who were seeing the potential of the computer, Olsen missed this opportunity. Regarldess of the different opinions, Digital was in a good position to capitalize in this space, and failed. It would seem that the key learning here is to listen to those you have hired.
Two websites are of particular interest when looking into this quote. First, one side disputes this quote saying it was taken out of context and that Ken Olsen was saying that he didn't want a computer controlling his home, while others say that he meant he didn't want a central computer in his home. A defense of Olsen's comments can be found here.
The second group of folks say that Olsen made that comment and he believed it - and that he guiding the company away from the personal PC. Gorden Bell confirmed that Olsen said that quote and believed that Olsen just didn't like the small computer idea. That evidence can be found here.
Olsen was eventually removed from his position of power at Digital having missed the PC trend and the associated opportunities. I couldn't find documentation to see why Olsen believed the PC wouldn't succeed, or why he didn't lend credit to the ideas of his staff. A reference to the staff showed that they did have the vision though - here is a quote from a web page
"Bell also sent me a remarkable Digital interoffice memo from 1969, in which Bell and other staffers laid out the potential for a small home computer — including applications like "shopping in the home," "play complex games" and "income tax figuring." "
In this case, it appears that a personal bias against something lead to the missed prediction by the leader of a company. Despite listening to his staff who were seeing the potential of the computer, Olsen missed this opportunity. Regarldess of the different opinions, Digital was in a good position to capitalize in this space, and failed. It would seem that the key learning here is to listen to those you have hired.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)