MICS Review Meeting Monte Verita, October 2003 Yves Pigneur Université de Lausanne [email protected] (+41 21) 692.3416 Actor/issue analysis of WLAN

MICS Review MeetingMonte Verita, October 2003

Yves PigneurUniversité de Lausanne

[email protected](+41 21) 692.3416

Actor/issue analysis of WLANActor/issue analysis of WLAN

The National Centres of Competence in Research are managed by the Swiss National Science Foundation on behalf of the Federal Authorities

IP10

2The National Centres of Competence in Research are managed by the Swiss National Science Foundation on behalf of the Federal Authorities

Agenda

1. Introduction– Research approach in IP10

• FRAMEWORK• ASSESSMENT• SCENARIO

2. Actor/issue analysis TEAM

– Model & Samuel Bendahan

– Visualization Dr Jean-Sébastien Monzani

3. WLAN (Wifi) experience Giovanni Camponovo, MICS phd

– WISP in Switzerland

USAGE

ISSUE

ACTOR

Security IP6

P2P IP5

WLAN IP4


Assessing the wireless landscape …

Observation & capture

STUDY

Multi-perspective

MODELREPRESENTATION

LANDSCAPEm-Business

CustomerMarket

CustomerMarket

Productinnovation

Productinnovation

Financialaspects

Financialaspects

InfrastructureIndustry


Analysis & visualization

TOOL

complex


… and its evolution

TIME

EC

ON

OM

IC V

ALU

E A

DD

ED

1. SCIENCE(Gestation)

2. TECHNOLOGY(Growth)

3. BUSINESS(Maturity)

4. ORGANIZATION(Decline)

[Meyer, 2003]

IP10

MICS

Mobile ad hoc networks

FOUR-QUARTER MODEL

TODAY


Multi-technology life cycle

TIME

EC

ON

OM

IC V

ALU

E A

DD

ED

[Meyer, 2003]

IP10

MICS

WLAN


TODAY

P2P

1. SCIENCE(Gestation)

2. TECHNOLOGY(Growth)

3. BUSINESS(Maturity)

4. ORGANIZATION(Decline)

FOUR-QUARTER MODEL


Disruptive technology

A disruptive technology is a technology or innovation

that results in worse product performance, at least in the near term...

[It] brings to the market a very different value proposition than had been available previously...

Products that are based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and, frequently, more convenient to use.

[But, they generally] under-perform established productsin mainstream markets.

time

perf

orm

ance

market (UMTS?)rupture (WLAN?)

New replaces old technology Market for old

technology

Market for new technology

[Christensen, 1997]

disruptive


Hype curve of the wireless landscape

Source: [Gartner, 2003]

uncertain


No prediction …

• “This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us.”[West Union internal memo, 1876]

• “I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and walked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year.”[The editor of management books at Prentice-Hall, 1957]

• “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”[Ken Olsen, President and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977]

• More recently, nobody anticipates the SMS phenomena …


… but scenarios

• “Scenarios are a way of developing alternative futures based on different combinations of assumptions, facts and trends, […] Building scenarios will force asking relevant questions and identify a range of possible choices or events” Caldwell

Telecom scenarios 2010(1998)

Scenarios for m-commerce 2006(2002)

Wireless Foresight in 2015 (2002)

best paper


Assessing a technology environment

uncertain

complex disruptive

ISSUE

ACTOR USE

Env

iron

men

tO

ntol

ogy

Ana

lysi

s

Five forces analysis Policy network analysis

Structural analysisActor-issue analysis

Disruption analysisAdoption analysis

Analysis & visualization

TOOL

Multi-perspective

MODEL

for assessing environment (present) and designing scenarios (future)


Multi-perspective model: Actor, Issue and Usage

USAGE

ISSUE

ACTOR

Factor & debetable question that influence the future

Demand & adoption by the

usersSupply &

position of stakeholders

business models CustomerMarket

CustomerMarket

Productinnovation

Productinnovation

Financialaspects

Financialaspects



INFLUENCE

competitorscustomers


Framework for IP10 studies: dialog with other IPs

USAGE

ISSUE

ACTOR

business models

Monte Verita Workshop

SecuritySkills: IT & judicial Method: elicitation

IP6

P2P (music) Skills: Marketing & ITMethod: empirical study

IP5

Wireless (WLAN)Skills: IT & managementMethod: case studies, DELPHI

IP4

China’s Broadband Wireless Industry:A Scenario ApproachMICS seminar

But also

Ad hoc networks


Dialog with IP6: “Security” issue

1. Economic actors observe now:– Flaws happen even in (highly) secure systems– Good reaction to incidents is essential for keeping users’ trust– MNOs play a central role

2. MICS takes care of “preventive” security and assumes:– "users can organized themselves independently, with solution based on

public key cryptography [...] Finaly, in self-organized mobile ad hoc networks, security is mastered by the end users, who will make use of appropriate products provided by the vendors" [Hubaux, 2001...]

3. Questions to MICS/IP6: What about “post-incident” security in Terminodes?– Solution for detection,– and investigation (trace, …)?– How to replace the operator? Responsibility of vendors (standard)?

Resources for the users?

EXAMPLE


Dialog with IP4: “Interoperability” issue

1. Economic actors observe now:– Interconnection issues (WLAN & GSM, …)– The integration of a new technology complicates the solutions– MNOs play a central role, even for less centralized technology

(WLAN)

2. MICS takes care of interconnection and assumes:– "In most cases they [ad hoc networks] will have to be interconnected with

other, more conventional networks such as Internet and cellular networks” – “It illustrates the strong tendency towards an increase of the responsibility

of the end-users [...] Ad hoc networks convey the promise of going a step further: to entrust the users with the operation of the network” [Hubaux, 2001...]

3. Questions to MICS/IP4: What about interconnection?– How does this issue influence the research?– What does “user-driven” operation means, from this perspective? – How to replace the operator?

EXAMPLE


Actor/issue models

PositionSalienceCloutInfluence

USAGE

ISSUE

ACTOR

GOALS• ranks the stakeholders’ positions on many strategic issues, • assess the convergences and divergences, and • anticipates coalitions and conflicts.

ROLES• Prospective: prepare scenarios• Negotiation

[Allas, 2001] [Godet, 2001]

MASAM

FOCUSMore formalapproach


Actor/issue input

POSITION– What is the stakeholder’s preferred outcome on this issue?

SALIENCE– How important is this issue to the stakeholder as compared

with all other issues?

CLOUT– As compared with other players, how much power does the

stakeholder have to influence the decision on this issue?

INFLUENCE– Which power has an actor to influence the behavior of

another actor?

[Allas, 2001] [Godet, 2001]


Influence model

• Actors influence other actors in order to use their clout on issues or their influence on other actors

• Direct influence: actors use their influence – to control part of the influenced actor's clout

• Indirect influence: the influence is used both– to control the influenced actor's clout and – to gain control of part of its influence

• Analysis– Influence & dependence– Mobilisation– Convergence & divergence …

A1 A2 A1 A2

A3

A4

I1 I2 I3 I2 I3I1


Decision model

c bc,ca,ba,ba, MID ,MIDmin MID MIDI

aa,b ba,a MIDI MIDI I aa,b ab,a MIDI MIDI D

aa

a

a

aa,aa DI

I

I

MIDI-I r

a

aia,ia, r 2MAO 3MAO

i ia,a 3MAO Mob

a ia,ia,i 0 3MAO3MAO Ag

a ia,ia,i 0 3MAO3MAO Disag

i ib,ia,ib,ia,ba, 03MAO3MAO3MAO3MAO

2

1 3CAA

i ib,ia,ib,ia,ba, 03MAO3MAO3MAO3MAO

2

1 3DAA

k

k

kDAAi,3k3CAAi,

kDAAi,3k3CAAi,-1 EQi3

MACTOR [Godet, 2001] MASAM

ba,ba, SDI SDII(0)

b a bc 1)-SDII(N1)-SDII(N SDII(N)

ba 1) -SDII(N1)-SDII(N1)-SDII(N SDII(N)

c ac,ca,ba,

c bc,ca,ba,ba,

a ia,ia,i SCloSPos Vote

a b ib,ba,ia,i SCloSDII(N) SPos InfVote

a ia,iia,i SSalInfVote - SPos Diverg

i c ic,ib,ba,a SSalSClo SDII(N) Power

b ib,ba,ia, SCloSDII(N) TClo

i ib,ia,ib,ba,ba,

ba,ba,ba,ba,

ba,ba,ba,ba,

SSalSSal - SPos - SPos With

Min - Max

Min - Alliance

NEW


Analysis and visualization system

WLAN

Example

Multi-Actor Strategic Analysis Model


WLAN (wifi) issues

Mobility Device Wild area Free net Regulation

0 Stationary neighborhood LAN

notebook Few hotspots

Commercial only

TightLicensing

1

2 Nomadic PDA Many hotspotsroaming

coexistence Status quo

3

4 Mobile PhoneWLAN & GSM

UbiquitousWLAN & GSM

Free networksmainly

Loose

Auto-organizationInterconnectionDevice-centricWireless

Ad hoc networks


WLAN (wifi) actors

• Mobile network operators (MNOs)• Internet service providers (ISPs)• Venues

– Airports, hotels, cafes…

• Communities– and free networks (Myotis)

• Informatics-related companies– Hardware, software, network equipment, …

• Telephony-related companies– Device manufacturer, equipment, …

• Regulator


Position, salience & clout

• Interviews of actors– UniSG & Unil

• Case studies (WISP)– CHUV– Zurich Airport– Swisscom Mobile– Sunrise TDC– Monzoon– Netair– Myotis– …

• DELPHI approach– Matrices by experts– Consensus in

meeting


Influence analysis

• Influence and relationship between actors– Dominancy , control, power, auto-control …

relative power

auto-determination influence by the others

The operator can use its influence on the

regulator

MNOs powerful

Venues under control

Regulator is a conciliator …


Issue analysis and dissatisfaction

• Expected outcome of issues and dissatisfaction of actors– Importance of issue – (in-)stability

input

scale

issues

satisfaction

expected

Dissatisfied actorswant to increase

Slight divergence between informatics &

telecoms

Midway outcome

MNOs & ISPs against communities for free network

Same for regulation


Actor analysis and power repartition

• Relative importance of issues• Power repartition and salience of actors over issues

relativeimportance

of issues

relative clout of actorssalience of actors

(darker)

free networks

HOT TOPIC

Telecom firms not salientMNOs allies?

MNOs & ISPs control 40% of the clout

many salient actors

Communities control 35% of the clout

NAPSTER

auto-organization


Alliance analysis & proximity map

• Relative distance between actors– Based on an “alliance coefficient”

Regulator and venues; potential allies for others

MNOs & ISPs against communities for free access

FREE ACCESS

MNOs & telecom for mobile use

MOBILITY

ISPs, info & communities for stationary use

2 scenarios?


Overall interpretation WHAT

IF

MNOs & ISPs against communities for free network

MNOs not salient on devicebut Telecom & Informatics salient;Exchange of position on free access Vs. device?

MNOs nearer Telecom than Informatics

ISSUE ANALYSIS

POWER RAPARTITION

PROXIMITY MAP

INFLUENCE ANALYSIS

Communities anticipate,look for allies:Informatics, Venues …

Which allies? NEGOTIATION

What reaction?

auto-organization


Results

• An explorative study on the impact of ad hoc networks on actors, in the field of ubiquitous computing(best paper in m-business’2003 conference)

• An empirical investigation of emerging usages and business models for WISP in Switzerland, based on structured interviews

A visual decision model for assessing a technological environment, A visual decision model for assessing a technological environment, its actors, and its issues, applied to the WLAN battlefieldits actors, and its issues, applied to the WLAN battlefield

• An empirical and prospective study of the m-business arena in China, based on structured interviews

Prof. JC Usunier:• A large empirical survey for measuring the attitude of P2P users


Next …

LBS

IP8

USAGE

ISSUE

ACTORINFLUENCE

m-payment

IP4/6

Sensor or RFID

IP7/11

ASSESSMENT: same (2nd iteration) plus …

FRAMEWORK


SCENARIOs

TrustedGuide

MobileKlondike

ProfessionalUsers

CommunityLifestyle

IntimateSeller

SuperOperator

BrandBureau

logistics/transportation?


Questions …


Source: [Raffi, 2002]

Can the insurgent gain a foothold, usually in the market below the main one?

Does the insurgent face high barriers to entering the main market?

How much value can the insurgent offer relative to the incumbent?

How easily can customers switch from the incumbent to the insurgent?

Does the incumbent have high barriers to retaliating against the insurgent?

Does the innovation displace incumbent products and revenues?

Foothold market entry

Mainmarket entry

Customerattraction

Customerswitching

Incumbentretaliation

Incumbentdisplacement

yes

yes

yes

yes

unsuccessful

significant

Disruptionsucceeds

Disruptionfails

minimal

FRAMEWORK: Disruptive analysis

Documents

MICS Review Meeting Monte Verita, October 2003 Yves Pigneur Université de Lausanne [email protected] (+41 21) 692.3416 Actor/issue analysis of WLAN