The
role of networks
Networks are a very important element supporting the rise of technocapitalism. Networks typically involve collaboration. For invention and innovation, networks have become the means to collaboration, helping diffuse knowledge, reproduce creativity, and pull together the resources needed to undertake research.
Networks have
become easier than ever to establish and join.
The Internet, the Web and telecommunications have allowed the creation
of networks for most every social and economic activity in existence
today. Helping this dynamic is the
rapid decline in the cost of networking during the past four decades, which
helped provide easier access on a global scale.
The networked
organization is typical of the emerging technocapitalist era. Those organizations can be found in sectors
that are most typical of technocapitalism, such as biotechnology,
nanotechnology, genomics, bioinformatics and biomimetics. The survival of many firms in these sectors
depends on their network relations for research. As a result, for example, a proliferation of research
unit-to-research unit (R2R) network linkages has occurred, to pursue
collaborative projects and share research resources.
Some of this
collaboration has led to networked alliances between organizations. Such alliances are often broad-ranging and
may involve not only research activities, but also production, marketing and
service. Research, however, is what
usually pulls those alliances together, at least in the sectors and
organizations that are typical of technocapitalism. Networked research alliances often involve, for example, the
co-ownership of patents derived from collaboration, joint use of laboratory
equipment and facilities, and the sharing of revenues. Many of those alliances also help share the
cost of research personnel and materials, thereby saving the participants
resources that can be redeployed to other activities.
Networks targeting
research can also occur outside corporate organizations. The most important example of this
possibility is the Open Source movement for software design, which created the
Linux software kernels. This kind of
networked research included thousands of software programmers, working
voluntarily in their spare time, with no compensation, to prepare code that
would then be made available to anyone freely in the Web. By making it available freely to anyone,
they guaranteed that the software would be used and then improved, as other
software specialists expanded and tested the kernels, or corrected flaws. By placing subsequently improved versions in
the Web, also available for free, it was assured that the process would
continue and be compounded. It may not
come as a surprise, therefore, that the software developed through this kind of
networked collaboration is often of higher quality than the one produced by
software companies that prevent free access to their code.
How do networks support the rise of
technocapitalism?
Networks have
supported the rise of technocapitalism by, first, growing rapidly and linking
diverse activities that are vital for invention and innovation. A major force behind this dynamic is the
fact that the value of networks usually increases exponentially as they expand,
simply by including more participants and facilitating access.
With networks,
therefore, value increases with abundance.
The larger a network becomes, the more valuable it is likely to be. This characteristic of networks is
diametrically opposed to the centuries-old notion found in mainstream
economics, which assumes that value results from scarcity. That assumption, fundamental to that
discipline and probably its single most important precept, is therefore
irrelevant for networks.
With many
networks, as the number of nodes increases arithmetically, the value of the
network may increase exponentially.
This dynamic has been a vital force behind the rising importance of
networked firms and research alliances.
It has also contributed much to support continuous invention and
innovation, by helping reproduce creativity in faster and more effective ways.
Second, networks
have helped technocapitalism emerge by diluting the hierarchies and control
structures that hinder invention and innovation. Established companies with substantial power often create
hierarchies and self-serving control structures that prevent new and more
creative organizations from entering a sector.
Networks help the new organizations overcome those obstacles by
bypassing hierarchies and structures, allowing upstarts to reach out and link
up with potential partners.
Some of the best
examples of this dynamic can be found in the research unit-to-research unit
(R2R) and business-to-business (B2B) networks that have allowed many small,
innovative companies to bypass the oligarchic powers held by large corporations. The Internet and the Web have made these
linkages possible to any organization at very low cost. As a result, for example, small companies
with very limited financial means but strong research creativity can link up
with numerous partners to pool resources and cross-fertilize ideas. Similarly, organizations requiring research
outsourcing or supplies can request proposals from many other organizations in
very short notice, cutting down the time and costs needed to find partners
The dilution of
hierarchies and control structures afforded by networks can also provide
greater flexibility to organizations.
By networking with other firms, many organizations are able to structure
their internal operations to better suit their research as conditions
change. Thus, for example, the loss of
key research personnel can be remedied by redistributing tasks to members of a
network. This can allow an organization
to shift gears quickly and replace the needed skills. Flexibility through networking can also increase the diversity of
interactions, to diffuse knowledge faster by linking with many different
entities simultaneously.
Third, networks have promoted decentralization
and the devolution of functions. This
characteristic has helped technocapitalism emerge by making it possible for
decisions to be made at levels that are closer to research projects. Very often, research personnel in direct
contact with a project have a better idea of what needs to be done. By allowing those individuals more
responsibility for decisions, it may be possible to expedite and improve
results.
Redistributing decision-making can also have an impact on creativity, by providing more autonomy to pursue insights freely and quickly as they come up. Some companies have even found it beneficial to let some research groups operate outside the organization, much as if they were on their own. This practice can help research by allowing those groups to network with other researchers outside, gaining new knowledge that they might otherwise not have access to.
Fourth, networks tend to
promote change on a systematic basis. Networks
often serve this aspect by growing, contracting, evolving, interlinking or
phasing themselves out to accommodate their participants.
To reproduce
creativity and accumulate knowledge, few qualities are as important today as
the possibility of rapid adjustment.
Networks allow this to occur by facilitating knowledge, interaction and
decisions. The scopes of networks can,
for example, change and adjust quickly to be more supportive of creativity, by
including new members with certain qualities, by linking up with
clearing-houses of new knowledge and patents, or by linking up with other
networks with compatible objectives and resources. As those adjustments occur, participants also gain the
possibility of modifying their scopes and objectives.
For publications on networks and related topics by this author, please see the Publications section of this website.
Copyright © Luis Suarez-Villa