Difference between revisions of "Business Reflection"
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This is a personal reflection over what can be improved in our scenarios. By re-thinking the imperfections, there is a possibility of future improvement. <br> | |||
*'''What about the business strategy?''' | |||
We’ve made the three scenarios depicting the future of grid computing development, and so what? Something seems to be missing. | |||
The scenarios we made are technology focused. Suitable business strategies that might work in all scenarios aren’t clearly pointed out. This is on the one hand because, we are over focused on technology; one the other hand, we weren’t associating grid computing with any industry or business at the very start of our work. We simply aimed at finding the possible future of grid computing itself. If the business strategy is introduced during our scenario making process, I’m sure the final story would make a difference. <br> | |||
*'''The B2C commercial market opportunities?''' | |||
At the end of our presentation, Professor Erasmus suggested us a further think in Grid’s consumer applications. Actually we’ve heard about and discussed a lot of potential grid B2C business applications which are mostly using information grid. Strange enough, we omitted the information grid and jumped our focus to computational grid which led us to almost another world. How did this happen? <br> | |||
I traced back to our scenario developing process. There were some pitfalls that we didn’t pay attention to:<br> | |||
#We focused on what were not available, what were the difficulties and challenges, yet omitted what were actually available but not fully exploited. By digging into all the challenges and problems and narrowing them down to focus on “the most important”, we simply missed out the other side of the coin: being creative, it means both inventing something new and using something old in a new way! We fall into the pitfall of not seeing the other side. | |||
# | |||
*'''Grid Re-definition?''' | |||
Through our research, we’ve already known that the “GRID” concept has been evolving since its birth, and is becoming wilder and wilder as an aggregation/ evolutional concept of all the related technologies. But we never really see beyond the fact and question ourselves: would the current definition evolve in the future? In what trend would the new definition be heading? | |||
[http://scenariothinking.org/wiki/index.php/Jing_Wu_Learning_Log >>back>>] | [http://scenariothinking.org/wiki/index.php/Jing_Wu_Learning_Log >>back>>] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:48, 9 April 2005
This is a personal reflection over what can be improved in our scenarios. By re-thinking the imperfections, there is a possibility of future improvement.
- What about the business strategy?
We’ve made the three scenarios depicting the future of grid computing development, and so what? Something seems to be missing.
The scenarios we made are technology focused. Suitable business strategies that might work in all scenarios aren’t clearly pointed out. This is on the one hand because, we are over focused on technology; one the other hand, we weren’t associating grid computing with any industry or business at the very start of our work. We simply aimed at finding the possible future of grid computing itself. If the business strategy is introduced during our scenario making process, I’m sure the final story would make a difference.
- The B2C commercial market opportunities?
At the end of our presentation, Professor Erasmus suggested us a further think in Grid’s consumer applications. Actually we’ve heard about and discussed a lot of potential grid B2C business applications which are mostly using information grid. Strange enough, we omitted the information grid and jumped our focus to computational grid which led us to almost another world. How did this happen?
I traced back to our scenario developing process. There were some pitfalls that we didn’t pay attention to:
- We focused on what were not available, what were the difficulties and challenges, yet omitted what were actually available but not fully exploited. By digging into all the challenges and problems and narrowing them down to focus on “the most important”, we simply missed out the other side of the coin: being creative, it means both inventing something new and using something old in a new way! We fall into the pitfall of not seeing the other side.
- Grid Re-definition?
Through our research, we’ve already known that the “GRID” concept has been evolving since its birth, and is becoming wilder and wilder as an aggregation/ evolutional concept of all the related technologies. But we never really see beyond the fact and question ourselves: would the current definition evolve in the future? In what trend would the new definition be heading?