Last week I had a blog post regarding what a technology preview is compared to a beta?
One of the basic differences is that the expectation after beta is a production release. With a technology preview, there is no such assurance. Based on the feedback received during a preview, a technology can retire instead of graduate. Given that, I then followed up with another blog post:
The upshot of that post is that for the industries that Autodesk serves, the probabilities of a technology graduating instead of retiring are:
|Architecture, Engineering, and Construction||69%|
|Media and Entertainment||60%|
For customers who participate in technology previews, it's great that there are better than 50-50 odds that they are not wasting their time learning, trying, and providing feedback on technologies that will never come to fruition. But that begs the question, "Is Autodesk being risky enough?"
Another way to look at this is that the graduation rates are too high. Although innovation relies on a toolset and a skillset, it also relies on a mindset that acknowledges:
- Innovation is a key to competitive separation.
- Innovation requires experimentation.
- Innovation is often based on the ability to fascinate.
Maybe we should be doing more to stretch the boundaries? Maybe we should be more willing to fail? Actually, fail is a misnomer in that a technology preview that retires instead of graduates is not considered a failure. It has saved us time and manpower on development of technology that is not highly desired by customers in the industries that we serve. So when it comes to technology previews, maybe it is impossible to fail?
So what are your thoughts? Are there more "out there" technologies that Autodesk should be previewing even though the probable success rate is less than the current graduation rate? What kinds of technologies should we be investigating and previewing? Let us know at [email protected].
Technology introspection is alive in the lab.