421. Research programmes and organizations: examples of non-material objects.
In the preceding item in this blog I proposed that the identity of objects is determined by their inner structures of components and properties, and the capacity they yield to produce novel properties in interaction with outside objects. Here I give examples of objects and their potential outside the realm of physical objects.
In the philosophy of science, Imre Lakatos proposed the notion of a research programme, consisting of a hard core of basic assumptions and methodological principles that is taken as unassailable, in the gative heuristic, plus a protective belt of subsidiary assumptions and tools, with the positive heuristic of seeking to deal with anomalies met by a theory by tinkering in that protective belt. I propose that this is a case of a capacity, here to generate different theories within the programme, with elements picked up along the way. This is an improvement on Kuhn’s notion of paradigm. The programme ceases to exist when the hard core is broken up.
Generally, cores form a coherent whole that cannot be broken up in some remix from different cores. This resembles the reproductive isolation of species in biology. However, some principles may be shared across programmes.
For example, in the research programme of mainstream, neoclassical economics the core contains the assumption of rational choice and autonomy of the individual, is oriented to the efficient use of scarce resources and markets, and holds the methodological principle to model optimal or equilibrium outcomes, preferably (or exclusively?) in mathematical models. The different programme of evolutionary economics also considers markets and allocation of resources, but allows for limitedly rational individuals that develop in social interaction, and studies processes that may not achieve equilibrium.
The notion of a programme can also be used to illustrate the nestedness of objects. Going ‘upwards’, different programmes in economics all deal with markets in some form or other. Going ‘downwards’, a programme embraces different theories, such as, in economics, theories of labour markets or international trade, in different ways in different programmes.
Another example of (largely) immaterial objects is that of a firm or business. What, if anything, constitutes its essence or core that determines its identity, yields its continuity, while allowing for change, adaptation, as it moves along, in markets and technological development?
In earlier work[i] I proposed the notion of ‘the firm as a focusing device’, yielding a focus on its central purpose. That guides what are the causes of its action: its efficient cause: the people employed, its final cause: the markets and products it aims at, and its moral perspective, and its formal causes: knowledge and technology. This notion of focus is more specific than the wider notion of ‘organizational culture’. The focus determines its capacity to act and develop. By definition, the focus is constraining, and complementary competencies need to be found outside, in alliances with other organizations.
Part of the capacity to develop lies in absorptive capacity: the ability to understand what others say and do, which enables and constrains ability to collaborate with others. That capacity is subject to development, in the accumulation of knowledge, partly coded in patents, and experience in dealing with people who think differently.
An orientation towards radical innovation, or ‘exploration’, requires a wider focus, more internal variety, or ‘cognitive distance’, with weaker ties, within the firm, while an orientation to the efficient exploitation of existing resources requires a tighter, narrower focus. Particularly in the latter situation, a firm needs outside complementary sources to deal with changing conditions, in alliances or other forms of collaboration.
Firms have learned not to dilute their focus too much, in a conglomeration of diverse activities, and to stick to their ‘core competencies’. A firm loses its identity when it loses or substantially changes its focus. This is akin to the reproductive isolation of species in evolution.
This happens in a merger or acquisition. There, firms find it hard to survive and adapt their identity in trying to develop a new coherent focus from different foci from the component firms. This is easier the more they operate in similar markets, countries and technologies, i.e. have a similarity of focus. It is also difficult to successfully change from a narrow focus of exploitation to a wider one of exploration.
Sometimes, large firms with a dwindling capacity to innovate try to inject new variety by taking over a new, more innovative firm. The result most often is that the exploratory capacity of the acquired firm does not re-invigorate the large firm but gets squashed in it.
Here also, there are multiple levels of objects. Within the firm there are different departments, with foci that are differentiated, within bounds. Too many different foci within the firm dilute the identity and potential of the firm. Between firms there are network constellations of collaborating firms, of users, suppliers, specialists, advisors, mediators, etc. What would constitute identity of such assemblages? At the minimum some shared ethic, skill, practice and style of collaboration, with the ability to develop and maintain requisite trust.
No comments:
Post a Comment