在线翻译

The Exploitation phase begins as a result of a wider IT literacy amongst users. Users begin to define their requirements and make demands on the technology. Users begin to take control of their own systems. The phase of Competitive Weapon is the phase when the needs of users dominate. Users recognise that technology is an essential business tool whatever the purpose of an organisation. As such technology must be managed. In this phase the ability of users to implement leading edge business applications is limited both by the ability to formally define the problem to be solved and, in some cases, by the availability of technology to solve it. Managing the phases At the start of the Science and Technology phase, IT first emerged as a subject in its own right. It started to become recognised as a science. Departments of computer science were established in universities and other higher educational institutions. In many countries, national support programmes were instituted to accelerate IT development. The result was a proper emphasis on IT, being of such crucial importance, but also the building of walls round the subject. Stand Alone Applications tended to be treated as developments in IT rather than user applications. In many cases they may have been elegant IT solutions but they were driven by IT alone and lacked the involvement of complementary skills in other disciplines as well as user requirements. Many national support programmes included such systemsdriven by technology push. The phase of Integrated Applications tended to be ignored by many IT specialists and government programmes. To support research and development in such systems was regarded as too 'near market' and efforts were concentrated on 'precompetitive' research and development in IT science. As systems increased in size and complexity 更多：https://www.bmcx.com/ , users were left stranded by national and international programmes and by managers of research. The Exploitation phase has started to bring the realisation that IT is being limited by the ability to handle the scale and complexity of systems. The Competitive Weapon phase has increased that realisation. Simply defining what systems must do in a way which allows technologists to produce them with certainty is beyond the scope of present technology. The range of possible solutions to a given problem is such that specifying a solution with reasonable certainty that it can be implemented is difficult. Getting the IT right in itself is not enough. Most systems require complementary skills in their implementation to make them usable and foolproof. Unfortunately most international and national programmes of IT support and most managers and administrators of research and development are still concentrating on technology push, pre-competitive R&D, and are fearful of getting too near market. They have failed to realise the sheer complexity in getting a formal specification for a user system and for specifying a solution for later realisation. It is this phase in the development of IT which requires a new approach to the administration and management of research and development. Research and development now In the early to mid 1980s a number of govemment sponsored research and development programmes were instituted in Europe. The Alvey programme in the UK led the way. The ESPRIT and RACE programmes in the EEC imitated the Alvey programme in style. These programmes set out to encourage links between academia and the supply side of IT—either manufacturers of equipment or providers of IT services such as communications and application software. There was, and still is, a paranoia that government should not fund the development of products or services—the programmes should not be 'near markef. They were therefore designated as 'pre-competitive', with the implication that the work to be done should be such that competitive suppliers of products and services should have no difficulty in collaborating together with government support. The result has been a concentration on technology rather than on its use. These programmes are not universally regarded as successful. But opinions of this nature have to be treated with care. Normally they are based on the fact that 'no new products have been produced' or 'the programmes have not transformed the financial viability of the IT supply industry". These opinions are frequently voiced within two or three years of the start of the programmes. They are not only false opinions in the sense that the work has been constrained to be 'pre-competitive' and therefore has no chance of impacting the market in such a short period but also in the sense that they show fundamental misunderstanding of the complexity of modem IT systems and of what is involved in effort and time to make profits from them. The programmes have been successful in generating links between academia and industry and have produced numerous new ideas which may lead to marketable systems in future.