Those who read my last post will know that last weekend I was away at a conference of Scripture Union, an organisation which resources and works with the church to help them reach out to the community, particularly among children and young people. Over the last couple of years SU has felt a particular calling to investigate ways of using 'technology' (ie the internet) to do this, and a lot of money and effort has gone into digital projects like WordLive, designed to help individuals engage with the Bible; and LightLive, which provides resources for youth and children's leaders.
During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete. For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks? Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?
I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different. In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system. Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter. If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.
Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future. When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema. It didn't. Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived. VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders. DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.
So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication. That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly. The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.
So perhaps there is a need for caution. But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across. Being too cautious is risky too.
P.S. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.
During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete. For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks? Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?
I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different. In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system. Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter. If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.
Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future. When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema. It didn't. Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived. VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders. DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.
So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication. That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly. The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.
So perhaps there is a need for caution. But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across. Being too cautious is risky too.
P.S. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.