A couple months ago, I wrote about the
Just In Time Revolution. In essence, it's the idea that the emergence of the Internet has fueled people's expectation to be able to get what they want, when they want it; and to have the power to obtain it.
It's the convergence of both these forces on a large scale that creates fundamental change, and in some cases could make many of our existing institutions irrelavant.
Follow with me to the flip for more...
Just In Time basics
The Just In Time revolution is a lot like the distributed computing model. People are decoupled from the centralized structure, but can't affect change as individuals. If I want lower drug costs, I can't demand my pharmacist reduce the cost of drug X just because I want him to. Instead, I need to band together with other people and use increased purchasing power.
In the past, in order to affect these kinds of change, we had to rely largely on institutional structures to organize: government, clubs, church groups, advocacy groups, non-profits, etc.
Now, though, with the availability of the Internet, people can band together for common causes on an as-needed basis. Of course, it still requires tools available to 'herd the cats', as well as someone to facilitate and guide the group. But the group itself is largely amorphous, as members, and even leaders, come and go.
dKos is dead, long live dKos!
dKos is a prime example of this. Prominent and not-so prominent people come and go all the time, but dKos remains. I'd even say that if Kos himself left, dKos would still exist and simply take on a life of it's own...if it hasn't already ;).
The point is that these structures are powered by masses of people, and aren't necessarily reliant on any one person to continue.
For Toffler, it's all about me
Toffler calls it demassing, but tends to put it in terms of a standard, centralized structure and fragmentation. So, Starbucks exists to provide an array of choices to individual desires. Workers become independant contractors so they can work as they choose for whomever they choose. Politicians must cater to an increasingly fractured electorate. His underlying theme is that people exist strictly to fulfill their own individual desires (I want what I want, when I want it now).
But it's also about us
All of which is true, but there's an additional dynamic occuring: the "you have the power" dynamic. And it's the "you", as in the collective, that's the important part. Because of the Internet and the way distributed groups of people can come together en masse, we now have the power to not only require alternative choices from existing institutions; but we now can also create groups in the hundreds, thousands, and even millions that completely sidestep the existing institutions and create new ones in their place.
JIT and entertainment
For instance, Kazaa and Napster brought people together who wanted free music, movies, etc.; but that was just part of it, as evidenced by the success of iTunes. Part of the reason people flocked to these peer-to-peer networks is that it gave them increased control over their movie and music choices. That is, if I wanted to watch the Sopranos or The West Wing at 3AM, I could not only do so, but I could choose whatever episode I wanted. If I wanted a specific song from a specific album, but didn't want the entire album, I could get just that song, and add it to my own compilation CD.
Contract? We don't need no stinkin' contract
Since then, musicians and other artisans have begun sidestepping the record and movie industries entirely, and using similar tools to get their work to consumers. Apple created iTunes as a direct result of this demand for individual control on a massive scale. I suppose if someone wanted, (if it isn't already being done), they could form their own production company by soliciting money and projects over the internet.
JIT and Politics
Dean's Presidential campaign showed the power of this same dynamic. Granted, this particular political campaign was centered around a single individual, but much of the work was distributed to individual groups; including the fundraising. Perhaps MoveOn and BlogPAC are better examples: individuals banding together on an as-needed basis (in MoveOn's case on a single issue, originally) to affect change.
JIT and the Media
With the emergence of ePluribus Media, we see another example of the Just In Time dynamic. A large group of people, tired of existing institutions, band together to become their own media group. At present, they still need the larger media as a whole to disseminate their message; but eventually, as more and more people learn of their site and work, they could potentially become their own media outlet with their own audience.
JIT and Commerce
Finally, for a group dealing in more tangible goods, there's always eBay and Half.com, where individuals have sidestepped stores entirely. There's also Freecycle, where they've actually eliminated money! :) In this group, people join local community newsgroups and offer items for free to other members; goods they're ready to throw away anyway. If someone wants the item(s), the current owner arranges to drop it off to the other person.
Porn on the leading edge...
From my examples, you can see that we're still on the cusp of this revolution. Many of the non-entertainment areas affected by the Just In Time revolution still rely on existing institutions. On the Internet, entertainment has largely driven the technology developments. In fact, I suppose that the entire Porn and Gambling industries have been JIT for years now. Other aspects of society are still playing catchup.
What do you think?
So, to wrap up, I see the possibility for all kinds of JIT groups. I mentioned drug purchasing groups above. What other JIT groups do you think will form?