Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [cp] Call for Papers on Economics of Communities of Practice

Expand Messages
  • Leon Benjamin
    Edward, Ditto. You could really get me going as well. My particular interest in all this is the means by which we incentivise people and how this affects
    Message 1 of 8 , Aug 9 2:32 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Edward,

      Ditto. You could really get me going as well. My particular interest
      in all this is the means by which we incentivise people and how this
      affects their collaborative behaviour. One early, quite seminal MIT
      study was that of PWC's global adoption of Lotus Notes GroupWare in the
      early 90's. One of its key conclusions (a 1992 report):

      "Further, in competitive and individualistic organizational
      cultures--where there are few incentives or norms for cooperating or
      sharing expertise--groupware on its own is unlikely to engender
      collaboration. Such products will be interpreted as counter-cultural,
      and to the extent that they are used they will promote individual not
      group aims. Recognizing the significant influence of these
      organizational elements appears critical to both researchers and
      practitioners of groupware technologies."

      http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/ccswp134.html

      It goes on to say that Groupware was only really exploited at partner
      level where there is no "up or out" issue.

      You may also find some interesting content at www.bionomics.org, again
      very early work from James Rothschild, from which, I believe, James
      Moore's "Death of Competition" (TCT and the nature of the firm) and
      later Don Tapscott's business webs, "Digital Capital" are derived.

      Have a good one.

      Leon.

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Edward Swanstrom [mailto:edward-swanstrom@...]
      Sent: 09 August 2002 22:00
      To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [cp] Call for Papers on Economics of Communities of
      Practice


      Hi Leon,

      Perfect! That is the type of studies we like to see.

      Many studies we conduct are based on non-monetary signals. Scientists,
      for example, respond to credit/reputation signals in a "credit market."
      Economic Anthropology literature is a great resource to learn about
      non-monetary driven markets.

      Transaction cost economics also provides a look into knowledge
      governance in relation to knowledge sharing - hazards, safeguards,
      opportunism, etc. There is a study recently published around the
      transaction costs associated in a knowledge exchange between IBM and
      Intel over chip design. In the article you cited, I noticed that the
      authors are drawing from that same transaction cost economics
      vocabulary.

      Transaction cost economics is also providing insight into why people
      share or not share knowledge within an institution. Traditionally,
      transaction cost economics was concerned with organization to
      organization transactions. Knowledge Economists are now opening the
      "black box" and studying internal transaction costs. So far, studies
      suggest that as individual knowledge producers, we act similar to a firm
      in a price driven market. The internal market is driven by time,
      attention, reputation, influence, power, as well as other "currencies"
      and signals.

      Game theory studies have also started to examine communities of
      experience or experience markets.

      Too much to get into here.

      Edward Swanstrom

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Leon Benjamin [mailto:lb@...]
      Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 1:19 PM
      To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: RE: [cp] Call for Papers on Economics of Communities of
      Practice


      Edward,

      This may be a little tangential, but....

      A recent formal academic study of the open source industry (one of the
      first of its kind) has been published this week. It's findings have
      some interesting and powerful ramifications highlighted below:

      "The result (of Open Source software development) is the emergence of a
      vibrant, innovative and productive collaboration, whose participants are
      not organized in firms and do not choose their projects in response to
      price signals."

      "Its central characteristic is that groups of individuals successfully
      collaborate on large-scale projects following a diverse cluster of
      motivational drives and social signals, rather than either market prices
      or managerial commands"

      "Removing property and contract as the organizing principles of
      collaboration substantially reduces transaction costs involved in
      allowing these large clusters of potential contributors to review and
      select which resources to work on, for which projects, and with which
      collaborators"

      Full details here http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html and a 59
      page report!

      Leon Benjamin.


      ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
      ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




      ::: http://www.egroups.com/group/com-prac
      ::: Email com-prac-unsubscribe@egroups.com to unsubscribe



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Leon Benjamin
      Edward, BTW - TCT seems to have morphed into Netcentricity - See. http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/netcentricity/
      Message 2 of 8 , Aug 9 2:33 PM
      • 0 Attachment
      • Edward Swanstrom
        Leon, I read and really like James Rothschild s Bionomics. I like how he reviewed the econometric treatment of organizational learning. Good book for
        Message 3 of 8 , Aug 9 2:45 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Leon,

          I read and really like James Rothschild's "Bionomics." I like how he
          reviewed the econometric treatment of organizational learning. Good book
          for beginners to evolutionary economics and making the connection
          between economics and the role of knowledge.

          Thanks for the references.


          Edward Swanstrom

          -----Original Message-----
          From: Leon Benjamin [mailto:lb@...]
          Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 2:32 PM
          To: com-prac@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: RE: [cp] Call for Papers on Economics of Communities of
          Practice


          Edward,

          Ditto. You could really get me going as well. My particular interest
          in all this is the means by which we incentivise people and how this
          affects their collaborative behaviour. One early, quite seminal MIT
          study was that of PWC's global adoption of Lotus Notes GroupWare in the
          early 90's. One of its key conclusions (a 1992 report):

          "Further, in competitive and individualistic organizational
          cultures--where there are few incentives or norms for cooperating or
          sharing expertise--groupware on its own is unlikely to engender
          collaboration. Such products will be interpreted as counter-cultural,
          and to the extent that they are used they will promote individual not
          group aims. Recognizing the significant influence of these
          organizational elements appears critical to both researchers and
          practitioners of groupware technologies."

          http://ccs.mit.edu/papers/ccswp134.html

          It goes on to say that Groupware was only really exploited at partner
          level where there is no "up or out" issue.

          You may also find some interesting content at www.bionomics.org, again
          very early work from James Rothschild, from which, I believe, James
          Moore's "Death of Competition" (TCT and the nature of the firm) and
          later Don Tapscott's business webs, "Digital Capital" are derived.

          Have a good one.

          Leon.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.