See systemicbusiness.org/digests/sabi2002/sabi2002.html

ABSTRACT

Virtual organising resolves itself into the initiating and generating of causing impulses preventing the creation of temporary relation concentrations in the network. Their long term monitoring and navigating are bound to fail existing.

In the virtual organisation all hitherto implements, methods and techniques of organising governing and managing prove ineffective. That results form the fact of the subject anonymity of networks, which once created are submitted to processes of dynamic and permanent reconfiguration cousing fast dying away of the subject system

The basic promise of the entry into the network is the possibility to create the coalition of resources consisting of the basic distinctive competences of the network participants.

daviding
ezOP
Posts: 28
(7/27/02 5:13:47 pm)
Reply Re: PERECHUDA 2002-149 Cartography of the Virtual Business

Key insights I got from the paper:
A lot of the work around "virtual organizing" is focused on bilateral relations, which may be considered in a the larger multi-lateral relations of a network.

How might I apply these concepts:
The design of governance that applies in a bilateral relational sense may need to be more generalized, as we approach more integrated networks of companies working together.

Additional ideas I might suggest to the author.
There were multiple ideas in the paper that somehow didn't connect for me. This may be resolved in person, as we have the opportunity to discuss verbally at the conference.

* Vectors (as described by Henderson & Venkatraman (1998) ) or subsystems?
Henderson & Venkatraman (1998) write:

Quote:

We reject a virtual organization as a distinct structure (like functional, divisional, or matrix). Instead, we treat virtualness as a strategic characteristic applicable to every organization; our discussion then is applicable to century-old companies that manufacture cement, chemicals, and autos as well as to new entrants in the fast-changing high-technology marketplace. We view virtualness as a strategy that reflects three distinct yet interdependent vectors ...

They then suggest three vectors:

Quote:

The customer interaction vector (virtual encounter) ...
The asset configuration vector (virtual sourcing) ...
The knowledge leverage vector (virtual expertise) ...

You make a distinction between individual (i.e. named) clients and anonymous clients. I agree that processes, costs and values are different across the three "vectors". Would it be better to consider the "three vectors" as three overlapping subsystems, instead?

* Shift from transactional to integration versus reconfiguration of existing relations?
There seems to be a supposition that the movement in relations begins as an "arms-length" transactional relationship, and is moving much more towards integration in networks. Henderson & Venkatraman (1998) suggest three stages (which I would describe as different levels of integration), where the "target locus" is (a) task units, (b) organization and (c) inter-organization. Their orientation is much more towards large industrial (i.e. business-to-business relationships), although a similar orientation occurs in neighbourhood bazaars, where actors are not anonymous.

As opposed to a purely economic approach to exchanges, should you consider an economic sociology approach? See Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg, "The Sociological Perspective on the Economy", in The Handbook of Economic Sociology, Neil J. Smelser and Richard Swedberg, editors, Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press, 1994, pp. 3-26.

Edited by: daviding at: 8/1/02 12:25:09 am