Olá a todos.
Esse artigo e o outro foram encontrados no site do Economist (www.economist.com). São do final de 99, e apesar de não serem notícia nova, servem para dar uma boa medida do que foi a euforia quanto ao advento do e-commerce. Como já foi aventado pelo professor Simon, talvez agora, após uma certa crise esse tipo de comércio esteja se acomodando; uma euforia desenfreada, um otimismo sem qualquer timidez, como bem se pode ler nos textos, era a marca característica dessa nova tendência. Talvez a forma das empresas fazerem comércio tenha sido mesmo revolucionária: acho que a compra via net, e outras transações também via rede vieram pra ficar.
Mas como vimos, a HP e a Compaq agora formam uma empresa que, em tamanho, se compara à IBM. Ou seja, pouco ouviremos falar de empresas que começaram do nada e terminaram por dominar - não que não haja tais casos, como bem provam Amazon, Yahoo, AOl, e outras empresas que de um começo digamos modesto, se tornaram grandes; é provável que as grandes que sempre foram grandes acabem por se fundir e se tornar todos ainda mais poderosos e inalcançáveis. Desse modo, não temos uma revolução; no Dicionário de Política de Norberto Bobbio, o verbete Revolução é caracterizado como uma mudança radical de forma de governo, de personagens no poder, de estrutura de poder... na falta de algum desses componentes da revoluçào temos mudanças diferentes, como rebeliào, revolta... no nosso caso, quase se poderia dizer que o que temos é um golpe de estado, no sentido de que a estrutura em que se organiza o poder é modificada - já que o e-commerce foi introduzido por outros que não os detentores do poder( IBM, Compaq...) - mas no final, são esses mesmos grandes que continuam no poder, agora alicerçados numa estrutura que mostrou que funciona, sem terem sido eles próprios a tentarem mudar a partir de seus próprios recursos. Ou seja, muda-se a forma de acontecer a relação entre consumidores e fornecedores, mudança introduzida por inovadores, "revolucionários", mas no fim as velhas oligarquias encampam e tomam lugar novamente, sem terem sido realmente ameaçadas, sem terem corrido risco real de perder seus postos no poder.
Mas aqui não há espaço para desenvolver toda a idéia - pelo menos não nesta mensagem, que já está bastante longa :-) (desculpe o tamanho, pessoal).
Bom, é isso. Espero que muta gente se sinta provocada a trazer reflexões sobre qual é o lugar da revolução nisso tudo.
[ ]'s
Vinicius
>THE NET IMPERATIVE
>Within a few years, the Internet >will turn business upside down. Be prepared--or die, says Matthew SymondsIN >FIVE years' time, says Andy Grove, the chairman of Intel, all companies will be >Internet companies, or they won't be companies at all. Just another example of >the arrogance and exaggeration the information-technology industry is notorious >for? Yes, in the sense that Mr Grove is as keen as the next chip maker to scare >customers into buying his products. No, in the sense that, allowing for a >little artistic licence, he is probably right.The Internet is said to be both >over-hyped and undervalued. Ask any signed-up member of the "digirati", and you >will be told that the Internet is the most transforming invention in human >history. It has the capacity to change everything--the way we work, the way we >learn and play, even, maybe, the way we sleep or have sex. What is more, it is >doing so at far greater speed than the other great disruptive technologies of >the 20th century, such as electricity, the telephone and the car. Yet, nearly >five years since the Internet developed mass-market potential with the >invention of a simple-to-use browser for surfing the World Wide Web, it is easy >to overstate its effect on the daily lives of ordinary people. Even in the >United States, the most wired country in the world, most people still lack, or >choose not to have, Internet access. And even for most of those who have access >both at home and in the office, the Internet has proved more of an addition to >their lives--sometimes useful, sometimes entertaining, often frustrating--than >a genuine transformation. Everybody loves e-mail; if you are a teenage girl, >chat is cool; and the ability to retrieve information about so many things is >truly miraculous, even if search engines are a bit clunky. Despite early >misgivings about credit-card security, buying certain kinds of things on the >web--for example, books, CDs and personal computers--is convenient and >economical, and has become popular. All these things are certainly nice to >have, but they could hardly be called revolutionary. But while the media have >concentrated on just a few aspects of the web--the glamorous consumer side of >content and shopping on the one hand, and the seamy end of pornography and >extremist rantings on the other--something much more important is happening >behind the scenes: e-business. The Internet is turning business upside down and >inside out. It is fundamentally changing the way companies operate, whether in >high-tech or metal-bashing. This goes far beyond buying and selling over the >Internet, or e-commerce, and deep into the processes and culture of an >enterprise. > >FROM E-COMMERCE TO E-BUSINESSSome companies are using the Internet to make >direct connections with their customers for the first time. Others are using >secure Internet connections to intensify relations with some of their trading >partners, and using the Internet's reach and ubiquity to request quotes or sell >off perishable stocks of goods or services by auction. Entirely new companies >and business models are emerging in industries ranging from chemicals to road >haulage to bring together buyers and sellers in super-efficient new electronic >marketplaces.The Internet is helping companies to lower costs dramatically >across their supply and demand chains, take their customer service into a >different league, enter new markets, create additional revenue streams and >redefine their business relationships. What Mr Grove was really saying was that >if in five years' time a company is not using the Internet to do some or all of >these things, it will be destroyed by competitors who are. Most senior managers >no longer need convincing. A recent worldwide survey of 500 large companies >carried out jointly by the Economist Intelligence Unit (a sister company of THE >ECONOMIST) and Booz Allen and Hamilton, a consultancy, found that more than 90% >of top managers believe the Internet will transform or have a big impact on the >global marketplace by 2001.That message is endorsed by Forrester Research, a >fashionable high-tech consultancy. It argues that e-business in America is >about to reach a threshold from which it will accelerate into "hyper-growth". >Inter-company trade of goods over the Internet, it forecasts, will double every >year over the next five years, surging from $43 billion last year to $1.3 >trillion in 2003. If the value of services exchanged or booked online were >included as well, the figures would be more staggering still.That makes >Forrester's forecasts of business-to-consumer e-commerce over the same >period--a rise from $8 billion to $108 billion--look positively modest. There >are two explanations: business-to-business spending in the economy is far >larger than consumer spending, and businesses are more willing and able than >individuals to use the Internet.Forrester expects Britain and Germany to go >into the same hyper-growth stage of e-business about two years after America, >with Japan, France and Italy a further two years behind. And just as countries >will move into e-business hyper-growth at different times, so too will whole >industries. For example, computing and electronics embraced the Internet early >and will therefore reach critical mass earlier than the rest. Aerospace, >telecoms and cars are not far behind. Other conditions for early take-off >include the ready availability of the right kind of software, computing >platforms and systems-integration expertise.Just as crucial is the impact of >so-called "network effects" as online business moves from a handful of >evangelising companies with strong market clout, such as Cisco Systems, General >Electric, Dell, Ford and Visa, to myriad suppliers and customers. As both >buyers and sellers reduce their costs and increase their efficiency by >investing in the capacity to do business on the Internet, it is in their >interest to persuade more and more of their business partners to do the same, >thus creating a self-reinforcing circle.However, even within particular >industries companies are moving at different speeds. Much depends on the >competition they are exposed to, both from fast-moving traditional rivals and >from Internet-based newcomers. But nobody can afford to be complacent. >Successful new e-businesses can emerge from nowhere. Recent experience suggests >it takes little more than two years for such a start-up to formulate an >innovative business idea, establish a web presence and begin to dominate its >chosen sector. By then it may be too late for slow-moving traditional >businesses to respond. For evidence of how far most companies still have to go >in developing their Internet strategies, look no further than their corporate >websites. A few pioneers--such as Charles Schwab in stockbroking and Dell in >the PC business--have successfully transferred many of their core activities to >the web, and some others may be trying their hand at a few web transactions, >with an eye on developing their site as an extra distribution channel later. >But more often than not, those websites are stodgily designed billboards, known >in the business as "brochureware", which do little more than provide customers >and suppliers with some fairly basic information about the company and its >products. Most managers know perfectly well that they have to do better. The >Yankee Group, another technology consultancy, earlier this year questioned 250 >large and medium-sized American companies across a broad range of industries >about their views on e-business, and found that 58% of corporate decision >makers considered the web to be important or very important to their business >strategy. Only 13% thought it not important at all. A large majority (83%) >named "building brand awareness" and "providing marketing information" as key >tasks for their websites, and almost as many (77%) thought the web was >important for generating revenue. A smaller majority (57%) also saw its >potential for cutting costs in sales and customer support. Yet despite all this >positive talk, three-quarters did not yet have websites that would support >online transactions or tie in with their customer databases and those of their >suppliers, although many were working on it. In other words, most bosses know >what they should be doing, but have not yet got around to it. It is easy to >understand why. Knowing that you need a coherent e-business strategy is one >thing, getting one is altogether more difficult. And until you decide precisely >what your strategy should be, it will not be clear what kind of IT >infrastructure investments you will need to make. > >HERE WE GO AGAINAll this gives many managers a terrible sense of DéJà VU. They >have been through outsourcing, downsizing and re-engineering. They may well >have undergone the frequently nightmarish experience of putting in the packaged >information-technology (IT) applications that automate internal processes and >manage supply chains, known collectively as "enterprise resource planning" >(ERP), and are still wondering whether it was worth spending all those millions >of dollars. Nearly all of them embraced the low cost and flexibility of >PC-based so-called client/server computing at the start of the 1990s, only to >discover the perils of decentralising data and distributing complexity. And >over the past couple of years, they have invested lots of time and money into >nothing more exciting than the hope of avoiding a systems meltdown on the first >day of the new millennium. So they have reason to be wary of consultants and >visionaries who promise new paradigms and tidal-wave technology. A recent >survey of chief executives' attitudes to IT conducted by the London School of >Economics for Compass America found that only 25% believed that it had made a >significant contribution to the bottom line, and more than 80% had been >disappointed by its contribution to their company's competitiveness.No wonder >many of them are asking themselves whether e-business is the most exciting >opportunity or the most terrifying challenge they have ever faced. Yet most of >them know that the Internet is in an entirely different category from the >technology-driven changes they have either embraced or had thrust on them in >the past. The same survey suggested that the Internet has significantly changed >expectations about what IT could deliver, with more than half of the top >managers saying they had high expectations for the future. Part of the >explanation is that IT investments, particularly ERP, have been inward-looking, >concentrating on making each enterprise more efficient in isolation. By >contrast, the Internet is all about communicating, connecting and transacting >with the outside world. With e-business, the benefits come not just from >speeding up and automating a company's own internal processes but from its >ability to spread the efficiency gains to the business systems of its suppliers >and customers. The ability to collaborate with others may be just as much of a >competitive advantage as the ability to deploy the technology. Certainly the >technology matters, but getting the business strategy right matters even more. >And that may mean not just re-engineering your company, but reinventing it.