[Case study] How 400 year-old tech still beats digital solutions

TL; DR

The "three deaths" of innovation that Safi Bahcall pointed out in Loonshots vex innovators who want their solutions to move up the adoption curve.

This time: How a 400 year-old technology is keeping digital solutions from taking hold.

The story

Hydrographers who create and update ocean maps still use paper charts because digital solutions run into multiple real-world (acceptability) problems, despite theoretically being desirable, viable, and feasible.

[Source: BBC Future]

The point for doing credible innovation work

Two points:

1. You must pursue Acceptability in addition to Desirability, Viability, and Feasibility. I.e., do "diva" (DVFA) innovation!
2. Heed the three deaths that bedevil innovation adoption in addition to the better-known adoption curve. Loosely speaking, those three deaths are stakeholders' and others' beliefs that innovation will (a) "never work," (b) "not be worth the cost and effort," and finally (c) "have unacceptable side-effects."

The three deaths mix a bit in this story. But mainly, it points to "unacceptable side-effects” as the main blocker to adopting digital solutions.

Footnotes

Find the full story here (External links)

Baraniuk, Chris. "A cut too far: The people who can't give up paper." BBC Future. (Sep 24, 2023)

Organization(s) involved (External links)

UK Hydrographic Office

Disclaimers

External links for your convenience. I do my best to link to reputable sources. But I cannot guarantee or accept liability for 3rd-party links beyond my control.

I have no affiliation with or investments in organizations mentioned in case studies–nor do I ever unless explicitly called out.

The organizations mentioned do not endorse me in any way. Nor do I endorse them. These case studies are offered merely for general information purposes. They do not imply that certain choices or actions are effective or ineffective, either for the organizations mentioned or for you. Consult your own professionals before taking action on anything mentioned here.

I have received no incentive of any kind for mentioning or not mentioning organizations or for the perspectives I take. Opinions voiced above represent my subjective, editorial take, based on public data.

I use all third party content in accordance with "fair use," "open source," and similar permitted uses, to the best of my knowledge. Please contact me in case of legitimate questions.