GenAI’s Hype Cycle

Why the dip is likely to be shallow

You have probably heard of the Gartner Hype Cycle, a graphic representation of the maturity and adoption of technologies that attempts to discern the hype from what’s commercially viable. The phases include: technology trigger, peak of inflated expectations, trough of disillusionment, slope of enlightenment, and plateau of productivity. 

Source: Jeremy Kemp https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gartner_Hype_Cycle.svg 

Last August, Gartner placed generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) at the Peak of Inflated Expectations on the hype cycle. This is the phase where early publicity produces a number of success stories and some failures. Some companies take action but most do not. This would indicate that genAI should soon enter the Trough of Disillusionment, where interest wanes as implementations don’t deliver and providers of the technology start to fail. However, someone recently pointed out to me that we’re not seeing such a deep dive into the trough of disillusionment as we have in the past with other technologies. If this is true, why would that be? Why would GenAI not have as large of a dip as other technologies such as autonomous vehicles and every version of the iphone?

One possible explanation is that with GenAI everyone is co-producing. We’re not just consumers or users of this technology but we actively participate in the process of creating the output. I think this is the big difference. In so many of our interactions with technology, we are simply consumers of a service or users of an application. We don’t really produce anything when we listen to music on Spotify or follow the directions to arrive at our destination using Waze. We experience, we enjoy, we learn, etc. but we aren’t producing something different based on our input. In contrast, with GenAI we are producing something with the technology. Based on our prompts, we might produce a blog post on AI or a picture of a person working alongside robots. Both of which have never been produced before by any other person or machine + person team. 

The term co-production has been widely researched and finds its scholarly origins in the public sector, in the work of Elinor Ostrom and others who studied collaboration between public departments and citizens. Researchers Jeffrey Britney and Robert England in their 1983 paper, Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept put forth this definition, "Coproduction is an emerging conception of the service delivery process which envisions direct citizen involvement in the design and delivery of services with professional service agents." There are a number of similar concepts in academia such as co-design, co-evaluation, co-decision making, and co-creation. The term most mixed up with co-production is co-creation but this term comes from commercial business and has only recently become popular in the public sector. These two terms (co-production and co-creation) do share much in common such as they both refer to collaboration between professionalized service providers and citizens. They differ in that co-production is generally associated with services citizens receive during the implementation phase of the production cycle, whereas co-creation concerns services at a strategic level.

The concept of co-production is very important in many industries and sectors. It has been described in the journal of Evidence and Policy as “the most effective strategy for mobilising evidence in policy and practice contexts. The concept of co-production was developed (almost) independently across multiple disciplines and has been employed in various policy and practice fields including environment, sustainability, and health.” Research is replete with examples of the importance of co-production in fields as varied as sport, exercise and health to mental health services. Practitioners have understood the importance of co-production for decades, especially in areas where people rely on service providers for care and support. A guide developed by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE), a UK charity and improvement agency, states:

Professionals collaborating with communities and people who draw on care and support are likely to have a stronger focus on the outcomes of the support provided when they are co-producing, and potentially a greater focus on prevention. So, there are improved outcomes for people who draw on care and support as a result. The contribution that co-production makes to developing social networks and communities is another benefit. It has been argued that this only happens where there is collective co-production with groups and communities and not where co-production is confined to individuals being involved in the services they receive.

So, if co-production has been around for many years and utilized in many, many diverse fields, what can we as technology leaders learn about using this concept?  I would argue that if indeed GenAI is witnessing a much more shallow dip into the Trough of Disillusionment because of the impact of co-production, we should pay close attention. A UK firm, Big Lemon, who creates tech focused on positively impacting communities, people and the planet, emphasizes the importance of co-production by stating, “it is not the technology alone that makes for success but the ‘buy in’ and collaboration of the people using it.” I think this is spot-on in that it doesn't matter how good or advanced the technology is if you don’t have the buy-in from people using it. 

A captivating, but possibly untrue, example of engaging customers in co-producing a product is illustrated through an anecdote involving the well-known General Mills brand, Betty Crocker. Originally, their instant cake mixes, which only required the addition of water, did not perform well in the market. The turning point came when Dr. Ernet Dichter, a renowned business psychologist and man who coined the term “focus group”, conducted research that revealed a surprising insight. Many consumers felt a sense of guilt from the ease of preparation, feeling they hadn't done enough to truly 'make' the cake. Dichter discovered that many homemakers expressed feelings akin to, "Using a cake mix feels like cheating; it's too easy and undermines my role in making something special." He suggested that by requiring the addition of an ingredient such as eggs, customers would feel more involved in the process, thereby alleviating their guilt and enhancing the perceived value of their effort. We might refer to this as co-producing the cake.

I would and have argued that the rapid growth of social media is in large part due to co–production. Researcher Veiko Lember, argues that, “...the very basis of the success of the contemporary technology and other industries is fundamentally based on user co-production.” He shares examples such as in Mexico City, home to one of the world's most expansive public transportation networks, facilitating 14 million daily commutes, residents collectively created the city's inaugural public transit map within a mere fortnight. They achieved this by contributing their journey data via a smartphone application. Meanwhile, in Oxford, UK, the community initiated a pioneering flood detection network. By deploying sensors to measure water levels and harnessing the Internet of Things, they set up a system for real-time observation and an enhanced warning system, augmenting the services already provided by public authorities.

The take away for those of us building products and services for others is, if we can get our customers to participate in the implementation phase of the production cycle, we can likely minimize disappointment and more rapidly grow. If GenAI actually does have a more shallow dip in the hype cycle's Trough of Disillusionment it will underscore the transformative power of co-production in the realm of technology adoption and implementation. This paradigm shift, where users transition from passive consumers to active co-producers, significantly contributes to a more nuanced and sustainable engagement with technological advancements. As technology leaders and innovators, embracing co-production not only mitigates the challenges associated with the disillusionment phase but also propels us towards realizing the full potential of our technological endeavors. This approach fosters a deeper connection between technology and its users, ensuring that advancements are not just about the sophistication of the technology itself but about the value and relevance it brings to the people it serves. As we navigate the evolving landscape of GenAI and beyond, the principles of co-production offer a roadmap for building more resilient, inclusive, and successful technologies that truly resonate with and empower our users.