| Home |
| About Us |
| Latest News |
| Features |
| R-100 Index |
| Newsdesk |
| Free Email Alerts |
| - - - - - - - |
| Wireless Business Review |
| - - - - - - - |
| Friday's Phrase: "convergence" |
|
|
| Friday, 13 August 2004 | |
|
13
August, 2004: Two for the price of one this week, with a look at those
siblings from the ICT jargon family, "synergy" and "convergence"…
While not exactly 'twins' in a lexicographical sense, 'synergy' and 'convergence' share both common properties and a tendency towards over-use in industry circles. The two words mirror each other, reflected by the fact that one more often than not leads to the other. In the majority of cases, convergence tends to be the more engineering and technical of the pair, while synergy speaks more of a financial background. Like most siblings, they often squabble in order to prove which is the most important. First mover? In a technology-led industry like telecom, it is no surprise to find that convergence often has the upper hands. Convergence scenarios can be seismic and revolutionary, or they can be low-key and pragmatic; for sure, they can also be a mixture of all these things. Seismic convergence tends to be introduced along the lines of "you will never believe this, but the 'X' and 'Y' industries are coming together…", where 'X' and 'Y' might be 'voice' and 'data', or 'fixed' and 'mobile', or 'information' and 'entertainment', etc, etc. This type of convergence implies two things: on the one hand, the emergence of common platforms for services; and on the other, a collision between what were once considered as separate activities because of their separate technology platforms. This sort of convergence is often passive or inadvertent, but analysts will always see it as 'inevitable' and 'unstoppable'. This can give seismic convergence scenarios an aggressive edge, as those on either side of the vanishing divide seek to establish primogeniture in the industrial realignment to come. The more low-key convergence scenarios are perhaps more in keeping with the current age as we await 'Redux'. It occurs at board level (that's 'motherboard', rather than 'executive board') and is characterised by the use of the bridging word, '-over-'. It is completely non-seismic and is epitomised by terms such as 'voice-over-IP', 'IP-over-LAN', 'LAN-over-WAN' and so on endlessly. These are more inherently technical than their seismic equivalents, but are more prolific, usually coming with their own ready-made second-generation acronyms (such as 'VoIP'). These varied levels and species of convergence may be a good way of gauging how technology is changing the ICT industry. For my part, especially when overloaded by the '-over-' phenomenon, I can never stop myself from thinking of its ancestors, 'Somewhere-over-TheRainbow' and 'Moon-over-BourbonStreet'. As far as faddish language is concerned, however, it does a job. Not all convergence comes to fruition, but most of the scenarios have a basis in fact. Corporation pax The same cannot always be said of convergence's non-technical counterpart, "synergy". When engineers speak of convergence, they generally do so out of excitement at some new development. When white-collar executives talk about 'synergy', expect blood on the walls before long. Convergence could be described as the process by which "1 + 1 = 3". Synergy, in contrast, is "1 + 1 = <1.5". This a bit unfair, as the appeal of convergence, too, often relies on cost savings. In the case of synergy, however, it rarely means anything else. Synergy is thus a parasitic word, beloved of corporate types, which allows them to demonstrate their executive machismo while, in technology industries, attributing their brainstorms to the potential of convergence. Thus, no merger or acquisition is complete without the singing of high praise at the altar of synergy (shareholders would have it no other way, although employees might beg to differ), but convergence is often left to explain how it is that quite so many rabbits can be pulled from one slightly enlarged hat. Watch words Among the collateral language which prevails in our industry, convergence thus stands either for an exciting breakthrough, a natural progression or a willingness to be duped. Synergy, in contrast, is a flinty corporate excuse for what those responsible often describe as "tough decision-making". It's rarely tough for them. Even so, both 'synergy' and 'convergence' share a genetic inheritance from the over-arching phrase, "consolidation", which in many cases is shown simply not to work. Fallacious assumptions about the nature of convergence and synergy may just explain why that happens so often. Jim Chalmers |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|