This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Table 1: The mapping of individual characteristics to Organizational Factors
Individual (from Rogers, 1995)
Organizational Factor Sources from Organizational
Adoption Literature Socioeconomic Status Earlier adopters are more likely to be literate than are later adopters Earlier adopters have more years of formal education than later adopters
Organizational Literacy and Technical Knowledge
Wozniak 1993; Goncalves et al. 1999; Iacovou et al. 1995; Chwelos et al. 2001
Earlier adopters have higher social status than later adopters Earlier adopters have a greater degree of upward social mobility than later adopters. Earlier adopters have larger units (part of larger organizations) than later adopters
Organizational Size and Slack Financial Resources
Iacovou et al. 1995; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Chwelos et al. 2001; Hoppe 2002; Luque 2002
Earlier adopters are not different from later adopters in age
Organizational Age Luque 2002
Personality Variables Earlier adopters have greater empathy than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters may be less dogmatic than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have a greater ability to deal with abstractions than do later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude towards change than later adopters
Attitude Towards New Technology
Harrison et al. 1997; Chau and Tam 1997
Earlier adopters have greater rationality than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have greater intelligence than later adopters.
No mapping
Earlier adopters are better able to cope with uncertainty and risk than later adopters
Organizational Attitude Towards Risk
Chau and Tam 1997; Harrison et al. 1997; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Hoppe 2002; Luque 2002
Earlier adopters have a more favorable attitude towards science than later adopters
No mapping
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Earlier adopters have higher aspirations than later adopters
Role of Organization among Peers
Harrison et al. 1997
Earlier adopters are less fatalistic than later adopters.
No mapping
Communication Behavior Earlier adopters have more social participation than later adopters Earlier adopters have a higher degree of opinion leadership
Role of Organization among Peers
Wozniak 1993; Harrison et al. 1997; Hoppe 2002
Earlier adopters are more highly interconnected through interpersonal networks in their social system than later adopters Earlier adopters have more agent contact Earlier adopters seek information about innovations more actively
Degree of Communication with Other Organizations (Competitors and Suppliers)
Huff and Munro 1985; Wozniak 1993
Earlier adopters are more cosmopolite than later adopters
No mapping
Earlier adopters have more change agent contact than later adopters.
No mapping
Earlier adopters have more access to mass media communication channels Earlier adopters have greater exposure to interpersonal communication channels Earlier adopters have greater knowledge of innovations
Access to Information Huff and Munro 1985; Wozniak 1993; Chau and Tam 1997; Arvanitis and Hollenstein 2001; Hoppe 2002
Understanding “Time of Adoption” of IPv6
Much of the current research on adoption focuses on the adoption of new
technology. There has been comparatively little research on the adoption of standards
(Lyytinen et al. 1998). In this section we use the broad categorizations created in the
previous section (and described in Table 1) to create propositions for the major influences
on early and late adoption of the IPv6 standard. Once defined, the propositions will be
verified against interview data collected from eight ISPs. Table 2 summarizes the factors
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
and their potential relationship to the time of adoption of IPv6. Specific information
about the characteristics of IPv6 is provided in the next section.
Table 2: Impact of Organizational Factors to Time of Adoption of IPv6 Organizational Factor Impact on the time of adoption of IPv6
1 Organizational Literacy and Technical Knowledge
ISPs in general are “technically-savvy organizations.” However some have been more exposed to IPv6 than others. Extensive knowledge of IPv6 can lead to an early adoption.
2 Organizational Size and Slack Financial Resources
Early adopters require slack financial resources to reduce the level of risk involved in being an early adopter.
3 Organizational Age Older ISPs are likely to have a larger allocation of IPv4 addresses. Also, older ISPs also have more IPv4 based infrastructure that might be incompatible with IPv6 and are thus less likely to be early adopters.
4 Attitude towards New Technology
ISPs that consider themselves innovators are more likely to experiment with IPv6.
5 Organizational Attitude Towards Risk
Organizations that are more risk averse are more like to be late adopters.
6 Role of Organization among Peers
Organizations that are considered innovators (or standard setting organizations) are more likely to be early adopters and act as opinion leaders.
7 Degree of Communication with Other Organizations (Competitors and Suppliers)
Given the distributed nature of the Internet, communication among ISPs is a fundamental requirement. ISPs need to actively look for information about IPv6.
8 Access to Information ISP’s with sufficient resources can create test environments and create knowledge about the new standard. Other ISPs rely on independent consortia for information.
Based on the above organizational characteristics of early and late adopters and
the literature on organizational adoption, we constructed six propositions regarding the
influence of organizational characteristics on the time of adoption of IPv6. Because there
is no clear theoretical direction regarding age (Characteristic 3), we have no specific
proposition for that factor. Recall that although Luque (2002) contends that older
organizations are likely to adopt later, Rogers does not see age as an influence on
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
advantage of IPv6?” and not “Do you agree that there are a lot of available applications
that take advantage of IPv6?”
In each case there were at least two interviewers present. One interviewer asked
the questions and recorded the responses. The second interviewer also wrote down the
interviewee’s responses to ensure that the responses were being recorded correctly. After
the interview was complete, each interview was summarized. The summaries were
compared for consistency and accuracy. Inconsistencies were resolved by follow up e-
mails or phone conversations with each interviewee. The final summaries were sent to
each subject for their review and comments. If necessary, further phone calls or e-mails
were used to clarify answers.
Table 3 lists the ISPs studied, their geographical location and their actual adoption
position.
Table 3: Internet Service Providers Used in this Study Subject Location Actual Adoption Position
1 CA North America Early 2 BI Middle East Late 3 GL Middle East Late 4 BG North America Early 5 CL Europe Early 6 GN Middle East Late 7 NX Europe Early 8 ST Asia Early
It should be noted the categories “early” and “late” as described by Rogers (1995)
are two ends of a continuum. An ISP may be considered neither an early nor a late
adopter and could fall within the “early majority” or “late majority” categories of Rogers’
adoption curve (refer to Figure 2). This could occur if the organization has some
characteristics of an early adopter and some characteristics of a late adopter. For the
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
hardware. However, in both cases the technology was championed by the vendor (e.g.,
Intel and IBM). In contrast, IPv6 was proposed and developed by an independent,
voluntary group (IETF) and is not championed by any single company. As of 2004, IPv6
is being promoted by the IPv6 forum and regional and national task groups. In the words
of the Marketing Director of the North American IPv6 task force, “there is no one entity
that is out to make money of the introduction and the adoption of IPv6.” Instead, profit
can only be made from the introduction of complementary technologies that will take
advantage of the new standard.
Relatively little information exists regarding IPv6
One of the issues facing early adopters is the risk associated with the adoption of
a new standard. The risk is a result of uncertainty as to the future of that standard. An
adopting organization can reduce its risk if they can leverage their knowledge about the
new standard to encourage its adoption. In the case of IPv6, the lack of a single champion
and a lack of a mandate from a central governing body increase the uncertainty and risk
associated with its adoption.
In many cases the developing vendor supplies early adopters with information
regarding the features of the technology, technical specifications, and training (Gawer
and Cusumano 2002). In the case of IPv6, adopters are forced to rely more heavily on
their own test beds (which require significant investment), internal training, trade
publications, or support from consortia and governments.
Because IPv6 was developed by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)3 (a
voluntary consortium with limited funds), there is no significant marketing effort
encouraging IPv6 adoption. This is in sharp contrast to Intel, which used the “Intel 3 More information about the IETF is available through its website at http://www.ietf.org.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Inside” campaign to promote its brand name. IPv6 is already embedded in Cisco routers,
Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system, and some Nokia phones. However, most
companies do not publicize this support for IPv64. In addition, the amount of information
available in trade publications is limited. For example, a survey of four top trade
magazines (see Appendix B for the search methodology used) revealed that the number
of articles regarding IPv6 between 1998 and 2004 totaled 97, compared to 743 articles
about Windows XP and approximately 1,500 articles about XML (both championed by
Microsoft). Although the number of articles increased from a few (between five and nine
per year) in the years 2000 through 2003 to about 40 in 2004, it is still a fraction of the
number of articles published regarding the other standards. This lack of information can
lead to uncertainty regarding the value of IPv6 and the complexity of its implementation.
In some regions there are major efforts to create test beds and distribute
information on IPv6. Such efforts are the 6BONE and the Euro6IX. These efforts are
mostly concentrated in Europe. In addition, the IPv6 forum conducts information sessions
in various regions of the world. According to the President of the IPv6 forum, the
attendance of these formal information sessions in the Far East is overwhelming. In the
United States, however, attendance is very low. Overall, he stated, there is very little
interest in seeking out information about IPv6 in North America.
IPv6’s lack of a champion and sponsorship
As mentioned above, there is no private sponsorship for IPv6. None of the major
Information Communication Technology companies have adopted IPv6 as its platform or
is advocating its adoption as the next Internet Protocol. Also, government sponsorship for
IPv6 is generally limited, varying by region. In Asia, there are various levels of 4 Although an IPv6 ready logo program was initiated in 2003, it is limited in scope and very low in funding.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
additional factors that influence an organization’s time of adoption. To better understand
what these additional factors might be, we revisited the unique characteristics of IPv6
described previously and the data collected in the cases.
Table 4. Summary of the Analysis Evidence of Factor by Subject
Propositions/ Factors
CA BI GL BG CL GN NX
ST
P1 Technological savvy
Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No
P2 Slack resources
Yes No No Yes No No** No No
P3 Access to information
Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes No
P4 Ability to create test environments
Yes No No Yes Yes No No*** No
P5 Low aversion to risk
Yes No No Yes Yes No No No
P6 Innovativeness/ Low resistance to change
Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No
Implied time of
ISPs adoption of IPv6
Early Late Late Early Early Majority Majority Late
Actual time of ISPs adoption of IPv6
Early Late Late Early Early* Late Early Early
Propositions supported
All All 1, 2, 3, 4,
5
1, 2, 3, 4,
5
1, 3, 4, 5,
6
2, 3, 4, 5
1, 3, 6 None
*CL is the only company we talked to that is providing IPv6 services commercially **Although GN has little excess funding, the cost to upgrade is not an issue ***NX has technically done some testing, but it is extremely limited.
The existence of a killer application
One of the unique features of IPv6 is that it is an infrastructure technology,
removed from the user, thereby requiring a “killer application” to drive adoption.
Therefore, we expect that an early adopter will be:
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
numbers of “killer applications” for IPv6 are introduced. This increasing difference in
service levels between the two networks could eventually cause the United States to lose
its dominance over the Internet.
Therefore, we see two alternatives for organizations in the United States looking
to retain their key role in the development of the Internet: either the development of an
IPv6-based killer application or government intervention. This intervention could take
one of two forms, both of which reduce the risk involved in early adoption. The first is a
mandate (as can been seen in the case of the European Union). The second is a partial
subsidization of some aspect of adoption (as can be seen by the funding of training in the
ST case, or by the tax incentives given in Japan).
REFERENCES
Arthur, W. B.“Increasing Returns and the New World of Business,” Harvard Business Review, (74:4), 1996, pp. 100-109.
Arvanitis, S., and Hollenstein, A.H. “The Determinants of Adoption of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology – An Empirical Analysis Based on Firm-level Data for Swiss Manufacturing,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (19:5), 2001, pp. 377-414.
Butler, A. “Is the United States Losing its Dominance in High-Technology?” The Federal
Reserve of St. Louis Review, (74:6), 1992, pp. 19-34. Chau, P.Y.K., and Tam, K.,Y. “Factors Affecting Adoption of Open Systems: An
Exploratory Study,” MIS Quarterly, (21:1), 1997, pp. 1-24. Chwelos, P., Benbasat, I., and Dexter, A. “Research Report: Empirical Test of an EDI
Adoption Model,” Information Systems Research, (12:3), 2001, pp. 304-321. Commission of the European Communities. “The Next Generation Internet – Priorities
for Action in Migrating to the New Internet Protocol IPv6” [online], 2002. http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0096en01.pdf [last accessed 03/30/2004]
Eisenhardt, K. “Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review,” Academy of Management
Review, (14:1), 1989, pp. 57-74.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Eveland, J. E. and Tornatzky, L. G. “The Deployment of Technology,” In: The Processes
of Technology Innovation, L.G. Tornatzky and M. Fleischer (eds.), Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts, 1990, pp. 117-148.
Farrell, J. and Saloner, G. “Standardization, Compatibility and Innovation,” Rand Journal
of Economics, (16:1), 1985, pp. 70-83. Farrell, J. and Saloner, G. “Competition, Compatibility, and Standards: The Economics
of Horses, Penguins and Lemmings.” In: Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy, H. L. Gabel (ed.), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 1-21.
Fichman, R. G. and Kemerer, C. F. “Adoption of Software Engineering Process
Innovations: The Case of Object Orientation,” Sloan Management Review, (34:2), 1993, pp. 7-22.
Gawer, A. and Cusumano M.A. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco
Drive Industry Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts, 2002.
Goncalves, V., Palma-Dos-Reis, A., and Duque, J. “Portuguese Financial Corporations’
Information Technology Adoption Patterns,” Interfaces, (29:4), 1999, pp. 44-57. Hart, P. and Saunders, C. “Power and Trust: Critical Factors in the Adoption and Use of
Electronic Data Interchange,” Organization Science, (8:1), 1997, pp. 23-42. Harrison, D.A., Mykytyn, P.P., and Riemenschneider, C.K. “Executive Decision About
Adoption of Information Technology in Small Business: Theory and Empirical Tests,” Information Systems Research, (8:2), 1997, pp. 171-195.
Hoppe, H.“The Timing of New Technology Adoption: Theoretical Models and Empirical
Evidence,” The Manchester School, (70:1), 2002, pp. 56-76. Huff, S. L.M., and Munro, M. C. “Information Technology Assessment and Adoption: A
Field Study,” MIS Quarterly, (9:4), 1985, pp. 327-339. Iacovou, L.C., Benbasat, I., Dexter, A. “Electronic Data Interchange and Small
Organizations: Adoption and Impact of Technology,” MIS Quarterly, (19:4), 1995, pp. 465-485.
Katz, M. L. and Shapiro, C. “Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities,” Journal of Political Economy, (94:4), 1986, pp. 822-841.
Kim, J. “U.S. Could Lose Technology Dominance, Executives Say,” Washington Post,
2004, January 8, page E05.. Leiner, B., Cerf, V., Clark, D., Kahn, R., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D., Postel, J., Roberts, L.,
and Wolff, S. “The Past and Future History of the Internet,” Communications of the ACM, (40:2), 1997, pp. 102-108.
Luque, A. “An Adoption-Value Approach to Technology Adoption in U.S.
Manufacturing: Evidence from Microdata,” Economics of Innovation and New Technology, (11:6), 2002, pp. 543-568.
Lyytinen K., Rose G., and Welke R. “The Brave New World of Development in the
Internetwork Computer Architecture (InterNCA): or How Distributed Computing Platforms will Change Systems Development,” Information Systems Journal, (8:3), 1998, pp. 241-253.
Palet, J. Presentation: European IPv6 Task Force Status, IPv6 Task Force Steering
Committee, 2003. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1962. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations (2nd Edition), The Free Press, New York, 1983. Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations (4th Edition), The Free Press, New York, 1995. Van de Ven, A. H. (1991). Managing the process of organizational innovation, In:
Changing and Redesigning Organizations. Huber, G.P. (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York.
Wrafter, M. “Europe Threatens U.S. Internet Dominance. Vision Consulting.” [online],
2000. http://www.markwrafter.com/groove/penned/vision/00/060300.html. [Accessed March 22, 2004]
Wozniak, D. G.“Joint Information Acquisition and New Technology Adoption: Late
Versus Early Adoption,” Review of Economics and Statistics, (75:3), 1993, pp. 438-445.
Yin, R. K.Case Study Research Design and Methods. Sage Publications - Applied Social
Research Methods Series, Thousand Oaks, California, 1994.
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Category Advantage of IPv6 Why it is Important Addressing The address space in IPv6 is much
larger than IPv4 (16 bytes instead of 4 bytes). This means that IPv6 allows for 3.4 x 1038 addresses, compared with 4.2 x 109 possible addresses with IPv4.
The number of unique IPv4 addresses is dwindling rapidly. This is mostly a problem in undeveloped countries.5 It is also anticipated to become a problem if the 3G wireless standard replaces the current 2.5G and if smart homes proliferate.6
Configuration A client running the IPv6 protocol can automatically configure itself with a unique address, eliminating the need for static addresses or previous methods of auto configuration such as DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol).
The management of multiple IPv4 clients within an organization involves tracking the assignment of addresses either for each client, or for “pools” of clients.
Data Delivery There are new header fields in IPv6, which indicate the type of information being sent within each packet. This information can be used to prioritize traffic and guarantee Quality of Service (QoS)7. However, it is important to note that the actual implementation of QoS is still in the “research and development” stage as IPv6 alone is not sufficient for implementing end-to-end QoS.
For the transmission of multimedia data over the Internet, the fast and reliable delivery of IP packets is critical. Prioritization is one method of increasing speed and interactivity within the existing network topologies.
Routing IPv6 packets are moved from segment to segment using a simplified, hierarchical routing structure.
Routing under IPv4 is only partially hierarchical, relying also on large flat routing tables that can exceed 70,000 entries. Routing under IPv6, with its significantly smaller routing tables, requires less overhead at the router and is therefore more efficient and faster.
5 In Pakistan, a class C address in 2000 cost between $1050 and $1275 a year . Due to a lack of addresses, the price of a class C address almost doubled. By 2002, a class C address cost between $1900 and $2300 a year. 6 “'Smart' Homes for Smart People,” Wired News [online], 1999, http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,17676,00.html [accessed 3/27/2004]. 7 Suydam, M. “Blazing trails: By paving paths for packets, MPLS could clear the way for IP convergence,”– CommVerge [online], 2002 http://www.reed-electronics.com/ednmag/index.asp?layout=article&articleid= CA214592&rid=0&rme=0&cfd=1 [accessed 3/27/2004].
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard
Mobile Current implementation of mobile IPv4 requires the use of a foreign agent (FA), a home agent (HA), and a care-of (CO) address. The FA has to communicate the CO address through a tunnel back to the HA on the user's home network. The packets from the corresponding node to the mobile unit always have to go through the HA. IPv6 uses similar but more efficient process. The auto-configuration feature of IPv6 enables the mobile nodes to configure its own address without the help of any servers other than a router. Route optimization signaling enables a mobile IPv6 node to inform its correspondent node about its new care-of address. This allows both mobile node and the correspondent node to send and receive packets using the shortest path between the two.
No special mechanism is necessary on organization’s networks to support Mobile IPv6, other than home agent (embedded in IPv6 protocol). The large address space ensures that the auto-configured address on the mobile node does not conflict with the existing addresses of the network. Resulting in ubiquitous support for mobile Internet access and increase support of wireless devices such as PDAs and Pocket PCs by ISPs.
Multicasting The built-in multicasting in IPv6 allows a server to send a single packet with multiple addresses. The ISP will do the final routing. This reduces the bandwidth required for multimedia applications and broadcasting.
Allows several levels of multicasting and the creation of routing trees. This is a more efficient routing mechanism for applications such as Jini, which depend upon the ability to “discover” compatible devices on the network. Similar mechanism is used in Universal Plug and Play. Also, improve the distribution of multi media applications such as video steaming.
(Adapted from Microsoft, 2000)8
8 Microsoft Corporation. Introduction to IP version 6 [online], 2003.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/2/5/525343cc-7ba4-4e3b-a96a-c7a040d98d2d/IPv6.doc, [accessed March 27, 2004].
The Changing Dynamic of the Internet: Early and Late Adopters of the IPv6 Standard