Shannon Clark on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:11:16 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
re: <nettime> Organised Networks: Transdisciplinarity and New Institutional Forms |
Well a quick answer to your question (I'm the organizer of a conference on Networks - MeshForum which will be may 7-9 in San Francisco): - Hierarchical organizations ARE just one example of a network (albeit one with a fairly simple theoretical structure usually with a single or very small center "hub") - what "standard theory" are you talking about (more specifically - what field's standard theory). In terms of the study of organizational structures - or social network analysis which I am very familiar with all groups and organizations can be represented by networks - just networks that may (or may not) have different structures to them. It is also important to keep in mind what you are talking about when you say "the network..." some people who study network structures focus less on the structure than on what happens over that structure (often referred to as the "flow") - an example might be people who study transportation networks. Other people who study networks focus on the analysis of a specific network map and structure - looking at the features of different nodes (which are more "central" etc). Other people look at using networks to gain understanding of what is happening within a group/organization - and then to use that understanding and perspective to change the structure OVER time (i.e. using phrases such as "connecting" people whose connections would result in a new structure overall etc.) But I have to emphasize - hierarchies ARE networks - the difference between them and what you are referring to as "large scale networks" is in how the "nodes" are "linked" - in a hierarchy the structure that emerges is "hub and spoke" with just a few nodes tying together the overall network. In the "ideal" large scale network instead of a single hub there may be a deeply connected core. However these differences are not all that sharp or precise at many times. There is also much to consider by how you define "connection" when you model the structures: * Is connection a formal thing (i.e. a formal org-chart)? * Is it based on actual interactions? (most organizations interact in ways that differ, often radically, from the formal org-charts) * Are the connections limited by activity within a period of time (to illustrate the issue - just who you spoke with this past hour? Past day? Past week? Past month? Past quarter? Past year? Etc.) It may be more useful to look at what are the differences in not how the nodes are connected, but in how (and perhaps why) connections are formed (or equally unlinked/destroyed). In a hierarchy, perhaps, these are slow to form and externally motivated. In some other organizations, perhaps, connections form in other ways, perhaps more internally generated. In either case, however, it may also be useful to think about not just how the organization can be represented (either at a point in time, or I would usually argue more usually over a period of time showing changes) but to look at and ask how activity is conducted within the organization - and how (and indeed if) the organizational structure impacts the activities of the organization. Consider a theoretical network where everyone has access ("connection") to everyone else (if you prefer a real example, think any organization with email and access to a list of everyone's email addresses). In this model people may, from time to time, try to figure out who within that network can help them with a specific question. This could be done via a "connection" to everyone else (i.e. a blast email) or it could be done via a series of more targeted queries (perhaps random emails to specific people) - however in the absence of other information neither approach is likely to work or scale. Instead, most organizations have other data visible and apparent about the "nodes" - as well as, perhaps, a process to exercise connections and use them effectively (or ineffectively). In a hierarchy this may be to pass requests "up" until they reach someone who can pass them back down (this approach can be used technically as well - in a simplistic way it is how DNS name resolution works). In other organizations there may be less structure to the interaction but perhaps there are established ways to reach a specific "core" - technically for example you might email a mailing list where the core people all participate (or people who are close to the 'core' people do, thus offering a short path to get to someone who could resolve the issue). It is a tough problem, however, to look at not just the shortest "theoretical" path, but to understand how people within a given structure actually perceive it and work within it/navigate it. And there is some suggestion that the information about the structure can (and often does) actually change that process - i.e. think transportation networks - if you are the only person who knows about a shortcut to bypass a busy road then you can save time - however if everyone traveling learns of the shortcut then everyone within the network - both those on the shortcut and those on the "normal" path may take longer (in part because the time delays in shifting from one path to the other might impact the overall network such that all routes take longer). If you are interested in learning a great deal more about all of these I invite you to join me at MeshForum 2006 - May 7-9 in San Francisco (see http://www.meshforum.org). I also invite everyone to listen to the sessions from MeshForum 2005 on IT Conversations (http://www.itconversations.com/series/meshforum2005.html) which are available for free. In particular, Dr. Anna Nagurney's presentation outlines the paradox I touched on above. Later this year we will make all of the sessions from MeshForum 2006 available online as well. Shannon Shannon Clark Founder, MeshForum "Connecting Networks" www.meshforum.org # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: [email protected] and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]