Systems integration and the lack of it

It happens that one of the things I am interested in is the diffusion of innovation. In college (not required for class), I happened to come across the work of Everett Rogers, who was a leader in the study of innovation and its adoption (first in the seminal text, Communication of Innovations, then in the expanded version Diffusion of Innovations). His dissertation studied the adoption of agricultural innovation. (Note that the field of community development is derived from Agricultural Extension, and the creation of that model of technical assistance starting in the 1860s.) Malcolm Gladwell and Geoffrey Moore have extended and amplified this work.

If you are interested in technology, I am sure you are aware of the classic discussion of VHS vs. Beta (or by extension Windows-based computers vs. the Macintosh) in terms of success. Another example is VHF vs. UHF television broadcasting (in short, Dumont didn't get rich, even though his stations were the basis of what became Fox Television decades later), or the failure of AM Stereo, because the U.S. government under the Reagan Administration wasn't willing to pick a winning technology, it left that to the market.

I bring this up because we are now running into that problem in DC with bicycle sharing. Washcycle points out, in "Say Hello to DC's Third Public Bicycle Program!" that the National Park Service has created its own bicycle sharing program, as has the U.S. Congress. These are bicycle "fleet" programs, like DC Government's small program for employees. Both are in addition to the nascent SmartBike DC program that launched in August as North America's first public bicycle sharing program modelled after successful programs in Europe such as Velib.

DC Smart Bike station.

When the U.S. Congress system was proposed (discussed in "U.S. House of Representatives to launch bikesharing program"), Washcycle and I counter-proposed that an institutional form of membership in DC's SmartBike program should be created, that institutions could buy into the program by adding bicycle sharing stations, and have different terms of use and payment. I don't know if that idea is being considered. I know that one of the problems with advertising-supported systems like DC's (by Adshel) is that the contract terms are very specific and the ability to be flexible is constrained by the contract provisions.

I find this to be another example of deploying different technologies, rather than agreeing to a common system or platform. It doesn't surprise me that federal agencies and local government can't or won't work together. I don't know if this yields other lessons that can be employed by other cities considering launching bicycle sharing systems.

My advice is to build institutional buy in before launching the system, come up with a way for organizations to have different kinds of memberships within the same system (i.e., colleges, businesses, and government agencies), and develop a common platform.

Another problem in the DC region (and a problem in Paris too), is because of insurance requirements and because of the three different political jurisdictions (DC, MD, and VA), there isn't a common system across jurisdictions. (Although the bikes aren't styled in a way that you would want to go on long trips...) This also limits take up or acceptance and diffusion of the innovation.

Also see the past blog entry (paper reprint):

Ideas for Making Cycling Irresistible in DC

Bikesharing at Adams Morgan Day 2008