There have been numerous criticisms of the hype cycle model. Prominent among them are that it is not a cycle, that the outcome does not depend on the nature of the technology itself, that it is not scientific in nature, and that it does not reflect changes over time in the speed at which technology develops. Another is that it is limited in its application, as it prioritizes economic considerations in decision-making processes. It seems to assume that a business' performance is tied to the hype cycle, whereas this may actually have more to do with the way a company devises its branding strategy. A related criticism is that the "cycle" has no real benefits to the development or marketing of new technologies and merely comments on pre-existing trends. Specific disadvantages when compared to, for example,
technology readiness level are: • The cycle is not scientific in nature, and there is no data or analysis that would justify the cycle. • With the (subjective) terms
disillusionment,
enlightenment and
expectations it cannot be described objectively or clearly where technology now really is. • The terms are misleading in the sense that one gets the wrong idea what they can use a technology for. The user does not want to be disappointed, so should they stay away from technology in the Trough of Disillusionment? • No action perspective is offered to move technology to a next phase. • This appears to be a very simplified impulse response of an elastic system representable by a differential equation. Perhaps more telling would be to formulate a system model with solutions conforming to observable behavior. An analysis of Gartner Hype Cycles since 2000 == See also ==