Arenas of innovation: understanding new configurational potentialities of communication technologies
Harmeet Sawhney and Seungwhan Lee
Media Culture Society 2005; 27; 391
DOI: 10.1177/0163443705051750
PDF
Introduction
‘No idea ever emerges full-blown from the head of Jove, or a secondary muse’ (Bell, 1973: 33). It arises as a little speck of insight that evolves as it bounces from one mind to another within an epistemic setting. The epistemic settings vary greatly in nature, as do the minds that populate them. The 18th-century French salons, with their leading ladies and eclectic mix of writers and thinkers, were an ‘informal academy for stimulating ideas by stimulating their authors’ (Coser, 1970: 14). The Bell Laboratories also stoked creativity by gathering a diverse array of creative talent. It, however, adopted a systems approach for facilitating communication among them. As Jack Morton, a long-time veteran of Bell Laboratories emphatically explained, ‘specialized people can become a system only through coupling with each other – and effective interaction in the tough creative process of innovation can come only through facile two-way communications between people’ (Morton, 1971: 60). In effect, Bell Laboratories sought to create channels of communication between creative minds via organizational mechanisms or ‘couplings’, what French salons had opened up through dinner and wine. Lest we dismiss the contrast as simply a problem of scaling up, let us consider one more case – Silicon Valley. Rogers and Larsen tell us that we ‘ought to think of Silicon Valley not just as a geographical place, nor simply as the main center of the microelectronics industry not even as several thousand high-tech firms, but as a network’ (1984: 79–80, italics in original). It is the informal information exchange mechanisms of Silicon Valley – extensive collegial networks spun by chronic job-hopping and the bars and other watering holes that constantly revitalize them – that give it its dynamism.
While creative environments flaunt their idiosyncrasies with great exuberance, they all share certain basic characteristics: plenteous channels of communication and shared code (Arrow, 1974).1 The channels of communication arise from the dense interpersonal networks that connect, either directly or indirectly, everyone to everyone else. These human linkages create familiarity and thereby generate a comfort level that opens up possibilities of communication. Correspondingly, the shared code facilitates easy communication by providing a common vocabulary. As Arrow tells us, it is ‘easier to communicate with other individuals with whom one has a common approach or a common language, literally or metaphorically’ (1974: 42). Together, the channels of communication and shared code create the social infrastructure that sustains a creative environment. Thus creative environments, in spite of all their individual differences, are social structures that share certain systemic qualities.
Perhaps being creative is more like being involved in an automobile accident. There are some traits that make one more likely to be in an accident – being young and male, for instance – but usually we cannot explain car accidents on the basis of the driver’s characteristics alone. There are too many other variables involved: the condition of the road, the other driver, the type of traffic, the weather and so on. Accidents, like creativity, are properties of systems rather than of individuals. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996: 45)
While shared code is essentially a sociological phenomenon, the channels of communication are impacted by the physical context. For example, when Oticon, a Danish hearing-aid company, found that stairwells were the place where spontaneous interactions were occurring between employees working on different floors, it widened them to facilitate interdepartmental intercourse (Kelley and Littman, 2001: 83). Similarly, distance-traversing communications technologies can sustain channels of communication between people located at a distance from each other. On the other hand, the social architecture of Mensa, an organization that brings together people with a high IQ from diverse professions in fun-oriented social settings, highlights the importance of shared code:
First, it attracts a membership relatively homogeneous on social rank: young single persons and older married people, living in or near large urban centers, and who are predominantly in white collar occupations.
Second, within this fairly homogeneous group, there is great heterogeneity of interest among the members.
These two factors, socio-economic homogeneity and interest heterogeneity, are a consequence of Mensa’s recruitment tactics. (Aldrich, 1971: 433)
While the socio-economic homogeneity creates a shared code and thereby facilitates communication among members, their heterogeneity of interests sparks creativity. By employing these two design principles, Mensa is able to create an atmosphere of ‘organized spontaneity’, an unusual juxtaposi-tion of two seemingly contradictory concepts that nicely captures the systemic qualities of a creative environment (Aldrich, 1971).
While the authors have not always specifically sought to study the systemic properties of creative environments, there is a fairly large literature that provides valuable insights into the dynamics of creativity in a number of arenas. They include the art world, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, high-technology companies, research laboratories, advertising agencies, universities and publishing (Becker, 1982; Berelson, 1965; Cave, 2000; Coser, 1970; Coser et al., 1982; Goldman, 1983; Hittzik, 1999; Kelley and Littman, 2001; Morton, 1971; Ogilvy, 1965; Rogers and Larsen, 1984; Schrage, 2000). This article focuses on the systemic properties of the creative environments that develop around new communication technologies. What is distinctive about these environments is the relationship between the technol-ogy and the community that develops around it. On one level, the new communication technology connects individuals dispersed across space and makes the emergence of a new community possible. On another level, the technology itself is the object of interest that ties together the community. The interactions of the technology enthusiasts about the new technology over channels of communication made possible by the technology itself generate a unique creative environment that we call the ‘arena of innovation’.
These arenas of innovation spawn many innovations that both enhance the underlying technology and create new user-oriented applications. We are interested in understanding the systemic properties of arenas of innovation for a very special type of insight they generate. While incremental technological innovations are easily understood by entrenched institutions as they enhance the performance parameters of existing systems, the radical ones remain below the corporate radar until they bring about upheavals in the market. For example, RCA, Westinghouse, AT&T and other corporations poured their energies in incremental improvements in point-to-point communication capabilities of radio and vigorously fought against its scattering tendency, which they viewed as a nuisance. The activities of the amateurs within the arena of innovation, which had emerged outside the established institutional framework, eventually led to the realization of the point-to-multipoint broadcasting potential of radio. We call this potential of a new communication technology to open up new modes of communication its ‘new configurational potentiality’.2 In this article, we are interested in understanding the systemic properties of arenas of innovations that allow amateurs to identify the new configurational potentiality of a new communication technology when it escapes the corporate eyes.
We start our analysis by examining the arena of innovation that arose with the emergence of radio. We first study the process by which radio’s new configurational potentiality, broadcasting, was identified within this arena of innovation, and then analyze its systemic properties that facilitated this identification. Thereafter, we move to our own times and look at the processes by which new configurational potentialities of the Internet were realized. We then examine the systemic properties of the arena of innovation that has emerged around the Internet. Finally, we identify and discuss the defining qualities of an archetypal arena of innovation.
Conclusions
A solitary individual on an isolated island, no matter how observant and creative, cannot identify a new configurational potentiality. The discovery process, by its very nature, has to involve a number of people. Theoretically, a small team of researchers working for a corporate laboratory should be able to do the job. However, in practice, the odds are heavily stacked against them. There are limits on the number of ‘eyeballs’ they can deploy. Furthermore, the ones they deploy more often than not have corporate blinders on them. The arenas of innovation, on the other hand, not only attract a large number of ‘eyeballs’, but also let them roam untutored on a still little-understood technological terrain. Quite clearly, arenas of innovation have unique structural advantages when it comes to the identification of a new configurational potentiality.
In this article, we have examined the architectures of the arenas of innovation that arose with radio and the Internet and identified their defining features. We could thereby claim that we have understood, to some degree, the design of an arena of innovation. The question then arises: can we create an arena of innovation? While it is difficult to furnish a definitive answer for such a hypothetical question, it seems to us that the sheer scale and complexity of the task would make such a project unfeasible. Furthermore, the social fabric that gives an arena of innovation its vitality perhaps cannot be willed into existence by design. It is a product of a unique interweaving of individual interests via a bottom-up process. So, ironically, it is quite likely that while we can understand the design of arenas of innovation, we will not be able to design them.
We can, however, nourish and protect them whenever they arise. The experience with radio gives us reason to pause. The arena of innovation that rose with radio existed for only a brief moment in time. Soon after the amateurs discovered the potential of broadcasting, the corporate interests, aided by government policies, took over broadcasting and, in the process, totally marginalized the amateurs. The actions of irresponsible amateurs who sounded false alarms and interfered with rescue attempts provided the ‘perfect’ pretext. Instead of actively marginalizing the amateurs, the policy makers should have worked to maintain them as a vibrant community while insulating them from the legitimate operations of government agencies and private institutions. Quite clearly, the elimination of the amateurs removed the problems associated with the chaos that accompanies an arena of innovation. But it also destroyed the arena of innovation that had produced many conceptual and technical breakthroughs.
A similar corporatization drive is currently under way on the Internet. We have already seen the initial skirmishes in the recent battles on Internet pornography (Communication Decency Act) and encryption (Clipper Chip). Until now, the libertarian forces have avoided a total surrender and managed to retain the Internet’s anarchic character. However, as the economic stakes in the Internet increase, the rationalizing forces will gather steam and it will become increasingly difficult to check them. We need to make sure that the arena of innovation is not stamped out of existence. In the case of radio, one could argue that after the realization of the new liberty of action – broadcasting – the arena of innovation had outlived its purpose and hence its demolition was appropriate. Since the Internet offers multiple configurational potentialities, the same logic should not be carried over to the new arena. In fact, the preservation of the arena of innovation is vital for the long-term development of the Internet.
Arenas of innovation are a quintessential phenomenon of our time. They are physically sustained by distance-traversing, real-time telecommunications technologies. Sociologically, they are enabled by our modern culture that brings interaction with disembodied strangers within the comfort zone of ordinary individuals. Also, they fuel broad-based creativity, which is another hallmark of our time.
Harmeet Sawhney and Seungwhan Lee
Media Culture Society 2005; 27; 391
DOI: 10.1177/0163443705051750
Introduction
‘No idea ever emerges full-blown from the head of Jove, or a secondary muse’ (Bell, 1973: 33). It arises as a little speck of insight that evolves as it bounces from one mind to another within an epistemic setting. The epistemic settings vary greatly in nature, as do the minds that populate them. The 18th-century French salons, with their leading ladies and eclectic mix of writers and thinkers, were an ‘informal academy for stimulating ideas by stimulating their authors’ (Coser, 1970: 14). The Bell Laboratories also stoked creativity by gathering a diverse array of creative talent. It, however, adopted a systems approach for facilitating communication among them. As Jack Morton, a long-time veteran of Bell Laboratories emphatically explained, ‘specialized people can become a system only through coupling with each other – and effective interaction in the tough creative process of innovation can come only through facile two-way communications between people’ (Morton, 1971: 60). In effect, Bell Laboratories sought to create channels of communication between creative minds via organizational mechanisms or ‘couplings’, what French salons had opened up through dinner and wine. Lest we dismiss the contrast as simply a problem of scaling up, let us consider one more case – Silicon Valley. Rogers and Larsen tell us that we ‘ought to think of Silicon Valley not just as a geographical place, nor simply as the main center of the microelectronics industry not even as several thousand high-tech firms, but as a network’ (1984: 79–80, italics in original). It is the informal information exchange mechanisms of Silicon Valley – extensive collegial networks spun by chronic job-hopping and the bars and other watering holes that constantly revitalize them – that give it its dynamism.
While creative environments flaunt their idiosyncrasies with great exuberance, they all share certain basic characteristics: plenteous channels of communication and shared code (Arrow, 1974).1 The channels of communication arise from the dense interpersonal networks that connect, either directly or indirectly, everyone to everyone else. These human linkages create familiarity and thereby generate a comfort level that opens up possibilities of communication. Correspondingly, the shared code facilitates easy communication by providing a common vocabulary. As Arrow tells us, it is ‘easier to communicate with other individuals with whom one has a common approach or a common language, literally or metaphorically’ (1974: 42). Together, the channels of communication and shared code create the social infrastructure that sustains a creative environment. Thus creative environments, in spite of all their individual differences, are social structures that share certain systemic qualities.
Perhaps being creative is more like being involved in an automobile accident. There are some traits that make one more likely to be in an accident – being young and male, for instance – but usually we cannot explain car accidents on the basis of the driver’s characteristics alone. There are too many other variables involved: the condition of the road, the other driver, the type of traffic, the weather and so on. Accidents, like creativity, are properties of systems rather than of individuals. (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996: 45)
While shared code is essentially a sociological phenomenon, the channels of communication are impacted by the physical context. For example, when Oticon, a Danish hearing-aid company, found that stairwells were the place where spontaneous interactions were occurring between employees working on different floors, it widened them to facilitate interdepartmental intercourse (Kelley and Littman, 2001: 83). Similarly, distance-traversing communications technologies can sustain channels of communication between people located at a distance from each other. On the other hand, the social architecture of Mensa, an organization that brings together people with a high IQ from diverse professions in fun-oriented social settings, highlights the importance of shared code:
First, it attracts a membership relatively homogeneous on social rank: young single persons and older married people, living in or near large urban centers, and who are predominantly in white collar occupations.
Second, within this fairly homogeneous group, there is great heterogeneity of interest among the members.
These two factors, socio-economic homogeneity and interest heterogeneity, are a consequence of Mensa’s recruitment tactics. (Aldrich, 1971: 433)
While the socio-economic homogeneity creates a shared code and thereby facilitates communication among members, their heterogeneity of interests sparks creativity. By employing these two design principles, Mensa is able to create an atmosphere of ‘organized spontaneity’, an unusual juxtaposi-tion of two seemingly contradictory concepts that nicely captures the systemic qualities of a creative environment (Aldrich, 1971).
While the authors have not always specifically sought to study the systemic properties of creative environments, there is a fairly large literature that provides valuable insights into the dynamics of creativity in a number of arenas. They include the art world, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, high-technology companies, research laboratories, advertising agencies, universities and publishing (Becker, 1982; Berelson, 1965; Cave, 2000; Coser, 1970; Coser et al., 1982; Goldman, 1983; Hittzik, 1999; Kelley and Littman, 2001; Morton, 1971; Ogilvy, 1965; Rogers and Larsen, 1984; Schrage, 2000). This article focuses on the systemic properties of the creative environments that develop around new communication technologies. What is distinctive about these environments is the relationship between the technol-ogy and the community that develops around it. On one level, the new communication technology connects individuals dispersed across space and makes the emergence of a new community possible. On another level, the technology itself is the object of interest that ties together the community. The interactions of the technology enthusiasts about the new technology over channels of communication made possible by the technology itself generate a unique creative environment that we call the ‘arena of innovation’.
These arenas of innovation spawn many innovations that both enhance the underlying technology and create new user-oriented applications. We are interested in understanding the systemic properties of arenas of innovation for a very special type of insight they generate. While incremental technological innovations are easily understood by entrenched institutions as they enhance the performance parameters of existing systems, the radical ones remain below the corporate radar until they bring about upheavals in the market. For example, RCA, Westinghouse, AT&T and other corporations poured their energies in incremental improvements in point-to-point communication capabilities of radio and vigorously fought against its scattering tendency, which they viewed as a nuisance. The activities of the amateurs within the arena of innovation, which had emerged outside the established institutional framework, eventually led to the realization of the point-to-multipoint broadcasting potential of radio. We call this potential of a new communication technology to open up new modes of communication its ‘new configurational potentiality’.2 In this article, we are interested in understanding the systemic properties of arenas of innovations that allow amateurs to identify the new configurational potentiality of a new communication technology when it escapes the corporate eyes.
We start our analysis by examining the arena of innovation that arose with the emergence of radio. We first study the process by which radio’s new configurational potentiality, broadcasting, was identified within this arena of innovation, and then analyze its systemic properties that facilitated this identification. Thereafter, we move to our own times and look at the processes by which new configurational potentialities of the Internet were realized. We then examine the systemic properties of the arena of innovation that has emerged around the Internet. Finally, we identify and discuss the defining qualities of an archetypal arena of innovation.
Conclusions
A solitary individual on an isolated island, no matter how observant and creative, cannot identify a new configurational potentiality. The discovery process, by its very nature, has to involve a number of people. Theoretically, a small team of researchers working for a corporate laboratory should be able to do the job. However, in practice, the odds are heavily stacked against them. There are limits on the number of ‘eyeballs’ they can deploy. Furthermore, the ones they deploy more often than not have corporate blinders on them. The arenas of innovation, on the other hand, not only attract a large number of ‘eyeballs’, but also let them roam untutored on a still little-understood technological terrain. Quite clearly, arenas of innovation have unique structural advantages when it comes to the identification of a new configurational potentiality.
In this article, we have examined the architectures of the arenas of innovation that arose with radio and the Internet and identified their defining features. We could thereby claim that we have understood, to some degree, the design of an arena of innovation. The question then arises: can we create an arena of innovation? While it is difficult to furnish a definitive answer for such a hypothetical question, it seems to us that the sheer scale and complexity of the task would make such a project unfeasible. Furthermore, the social fabric that gives an arena of innovation its vitality perhaps cannot be willed into existence by design. It is a product of a unique interweaving of individual interests via a bottom-up process. So, ironically, it is quite likely that while we can understand the design of arenas of innovation, we will not be able to design them.
We can, however, nourish and protect them whenever they arise. The experience with radio gives us reason to pause. The arena of innovation that rose with radio existed for only a brief moment in time. Soon after the amateurs discovered the potential of broadcasting, the corporate interests, aided by government policies, took over broadcasting and, in the process, totally marginalized the amateurs. The actions of irresponsible amateurs who sounded false alarms and interfered with rescue attempts provided the ‘perfect’ pretext. Instead of actively marginalizing the amateurs, the policy makers should have worked to maintain them as a vibrant community while insulating them from the legitimate operations of government agencies and private institutions. Quite clearly, the elimination of the amateurs removed the problems associated with the chaos that accompanies an arena of innovation. But it also destroyed the arena of innovation that had produced many conceptual and technical breakthroughs.
A similar corporatization drive is currently under way on the Internet. We have already seen the initial skirmishes in the recent battles on Internet pornography (Communication Decency Act) and encryption (Clipper Chip). Until now, the libertarian forces have avoided a total surrender and managed to retain the Internet’s anarchic character. However, as the economic stakes in the Internet increase, the rationalizing forces will gather steam and it will become increasingly difficult to check them. We need to make sure that the arena of innovation is not stamped out of existence. In the case of radio, one could argue that after the realization of the new liberty of action – broadcasting – the arena of innovation had outlived its purpose and hence its demolition was appropriate. Since the Internet offers multiple configurational potentialities, the same logic should not be carried over to the new arena. In fact, the preservation of the arena of innovation is vital for the long-term development of the Internet.
Arenas of innovation are a quintessential phenomenon of our time. They are physically sustained by distance-traversing, real-time telecommunications technologies. Sociologically, they are enabled by our modern culture that brings interaction with disembodied strangers within the comfort zone of ordinary individuals. Also, they fuel broad-based creativity, which is another hallmark of our time.
Finally, at some point, the arenas of innovation become the staging grounds for one of the fundamental conflicts of our time: creative libertarian impulses versus rationalizing commercial forces. If the past is any indicator, the odds are staked against the former. But then, the battle is worth fighting and we hope this article will form a small contribution to that effort.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου