Often times I believe we get caught in those incredibly forceful “grunts” forward in technology. All of a sudden a product or program or algorithm changes everything. It does so forcefully, quickly and absolutely.

The iPhone is one such example. Google is another. Twitter is another. One moment it’s pie in the sky scifi (or a total unknown), the next it’s conquered the way we live or work. Those great technological upheavals fool us into thinking all of technology is rushing forward at the same pace. I propose it’s not. The mere fact that great leaps forward in how technology changes our lives are so few and far between helps prove my hypothesis.

At the risk of seeming like a harbinger of doom and gloom or a closet luddite, I believe that the more technology moves forward the more difficult it becomes to generate the next great leap. Take a look at software and applications that are NOT on the top of the heap. Or products that are NOT the top picks by technology editors. You’ll find that our march forward in the design, development and value of technology grows very spotty. Interfaces are kludgy. Controls are problematic. Inconsistencies and non-standards abound.

What lessons can we take from this?

Hypothesis #1: Advancement is not a homogenous process. It moves in fits and starts; in unevenness. Advancement in technology is much like evolution, it moves a slow steady pace, until it doesn’t. Often these anomalies are short-lived, unpredictable but nearly always game changing.

Hypothesis #2: Technological advancement expected to have the profound change effect futurists predict, doesn’t. Yet, things that do create disruptive change are not anticipated. “A” does not lead to “C” though “B”. Often it hits the unexpected and lands somewhere unknown. The flying cars predicted in the 50s, 60s and even 70s are not here. Likely they will never be here … and that leads to my third hypothesis:

Hypothesis #3 Critical change will come from unexpected places and from technologies no one can foresee. This is the reason we don’t drive flying cars or live in environmentally controlled glass bubbles over our cities. Something came along to curtail and derail. Economics and technology interfere with the best-laid plans of mice and futurists. If handling a ground vehicle in two-dimensions accounts for hundreds of thousands of auto accidents, imagine maneuvering in three dimensions with the forces of weather at work. Even running out of gas has disastrous consequences.

Hypothesis #4: Gauge the rate of technological advancement not by the influence of the leading technology but by the state of the second and third tier products and processes. Just as in sports, rate the state of technology by the “strength of the bench.” This is where we started. Great application of technology is rare. Average and sub-par are far more common. Klutzy is, more often than not, the state of the art.

So, what does all of this mean to us marketers and communicators?

Be skeptical. Every proclaimed leap forward should be viewed with skepticism and doubt until a clear application can be defined and developed. Lots of people are rushing to Facebook® and to Twitter® as a means of socially networking with their market. Few understand why. And even fewer understand to what end. Get the whys and the results answered before you mount an onslaught of tweets.

Be curious. Just as a healthy dose of skepticism is recommended, an equal measure of curiosity is mandatory.

Refer to hypothesis #3: Important advancements come from the unpredictable. The litmus test of applying new technologies to marketing is to understand why and what you’re trying to accomplish. Some do dabble in communication technologies and channels to see if they may work out. But those who do realize that it could result in a total waste of time, money and resources. The leading edge is indeed the bleeding edge in technology. You don’t want to be in the first wave taking the beachhead in a techno-assault. They get mowed down. You want to be an early adopter, however. They get medals and parades.

Don’t go too fast; or too slow, but go … with purpose. I believe that effective uses of technologies are based in specific, purposeful initiatives that use technology wisely and understandably.

And lastly: There is great opportunity with every advancement in technology, especially as it relates to the marketing communications business.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe that “average” is really the state of the art; that “acceptable” often passes for competitive. When you make the goal “elegant”, you’ll be far ahead of your competitors.