Network Production
+description
This concept focuses on the productivity gains possible by moving from factory production to network production.
Factory production allowed fewer people to create more physical goods at a cheaper price than craft production. In craft production, one person makes all the parts of an object, such a table or tshirt. Factory production, each worker does one part of the production over and over but the process is composed into a line that results in a complete product. Factory production focuses on quality control, standardization, and automation. Network production can leverage factory production but it adds the uniqueness factor back in. A network can produce an infinite variety. And given people's desire for identity and uniqueness, it can outperform factory production.
Network production looks like Threadless, a tshirt company that has a network of designers. The physical shirts can be made in a factory process, but the design that makes them interesting is created by a network of creatives. We can also think of aspects of the sharing economy as network production even though it is less about physical goods. It too uses uniqueness as a winning edge. Airbnb (for all the gripes we may have about community impacts and exploited sharers) beat out hotels in short order by allowing people to charge for sharing their property. Networks do a better job of creating, producing, and delivering unique objects and experiences to those that desire them.
Just as factory produiction didn't fully replace craft production, network production will not eliminate the need for some factory production. But it may help limit it to only that which does it best (where best is defined by the current ethical and cultural preference).
+Organizational
Thrivability in Organizational Realms
We might ask, “What is the future of work and the organization through the perspective of thrivability?” Given the conversation in the Thrivability Salon last week, I want to share some thoughts on organizations for network production.
First, maybe we could talk about networks as an emergent design for higher uniqueness and productivity. We might say that craft production might make for quite unique options for your table, but it also might cost a lot because of the amount of labor. It lacks some efficiencies of scale. Factory production gained the efficiency of scale, but it also reduced uniqueness. Variation is hard for factories focused on sameness. Network production becomes more possible in a world in which accessibility of machinery or infrastructure increases and marketing reach is extended. Say, Threadless can do mass production of tshirts and other goods, and it uses a network of designers to make quite unique designs. Or Airbnb makes another example, as a network of individuals sharing a platform for renting out their homes. Airbnb can produce much more uniqueness. (Of course we can also gripe about how these corporations become the man-in-the-middle, doing extraction...for now.) Ways to disintermediate are coming with more cooperatives now that we know this stuff can work. Upside: more uniqueness. Downside: location of ownership and management of risk. Speaking of downside...this becomes part of downsizing.
Downsizing
The size of companies (at least digitally enabled ones) has been shrinking. Most people assume that a company with a network of freelancers-on-call will be able to outperform a company with a dedicated staff on payroll. I have been (and continue to be) a big fan of Robin Chase with Peers Inc and Nilofer Merchant with Social Era. Both play with the boundaries of what is “inside” or “outside” the organization to increase value while enabling uniqueness and relationship.
In the nonprofit world, there has been a long term push to put more money into program objectives and minimize core operations. Can you get a bunch of volunteers to be loosely coordinated in a task? Then you are more likely to win funding because donors want impact (homeless people fed) more than they want salaries (development director with a salary). The general push is toward bigger immediate measurable impact and away from infrastructure and operations for long term strategic shift.
The dangers in downsizing is the expansion of the precariat to include precarious independent contractors who scramble for work, never get a paid vacation, and lack access and leverage for health insurance (in the United States, at least). And in the case of nonprofits or social enterprise...and even in research and other long term investment efforts, the strangling of funding sources for transformative work. What will we do to course correct on that?
Collapsing time and distance
Network production increases in a digital world because strangers from across the planet can connect and co-create together. Distance isn’t an issue in the data or attention economy. Of course, jurisdiction can still be an issue, but we can discuss that elsewhere. In the world of factory production, time was purchased as Full Time aka 40+ hours a week employees, for example. In a world of network production, time is fluid. Or output is what is measured and time isn’t considered. An airbnb rental price is not based on the number of hours setting up for photo worthy shots. Time isn’t a function unless, it is time to the airport. ;) Network production has deep territory for matching skills and gifts to opportunities. However, you may also now be in competition on a design, vacation, or experience with someone across the globe, in a different time zone, and vastly different cultural experience.
Capacity Building
To get the gains on network production, while mitigating the side effect, a few capacities are needed. In the case of something like Threadless, that looks like a digital community with rewards for designs so that creators will submit designs without being paid to be on staff. Social capital pays and reputation rewards matter. Yeah for moves toward a post-monetary world. The digital infrastructure for the submission and community interaction enables the system. Still, those designers need the support to not be in a precarious position about insurance and rent, etc. How do we build the capacity in the system to enable customization without making contributors live precariously?
In the case of sharing economy items, you need people wealthy enough to be owners and with enough spare capacity and hunger for more income to want to give others access and be paid for it. That is a fine line "carrying capacity" to be managing for. Then you again need a digital infrastructure to make search and purchase possible. We have a lot of room for growth and innovation here.
Fluid Organizations
Time is fluid, participation is fluid, distance is fluid, relationships are networked. Instead of building large brittle organizations, we get organic breathing amorphous organizations that adjust to changing circumstances delivering high variety/uniqueness and systematized and professional level branding and operations. Look for words like fluid and liquid and organic. And of course, flows. Of course what Herman and I wrote about in Cultivating Flows serves as a pragmatist guide to taking ideas and creating thriving organizations…
Inquiry
What support do organizations require to address potential for thrivability? What might governance look like in these loosely affiliated networks of creativity and production?
+Systemic
Network Production at Systems Layer
We have been optimizing for the best policies and practices inside organizations for some time. And then how to connect between organizations and those outside of it, the relational layer. Part of the next phase is about building capacity at the systemic layers. How do we build capacities in ecosystems?
This concept focuses on the productivity gains possible by moving from factory production to network production.
Factory production allowed fewer people to create more physical goods at a cheaper price than craft production. In craft production, one person makes all the parts of an object, such a table or tshirt. Factory production, each worker does one part of the production over and over but the process is composed into a line that results in a complete product. Factory production focuses on quality control, standardization, and automation. Network production can leverage factory production but it adds the uniqueness factor back in. A network can produce an infinite variety. And given people's desire for identity and uniqueness, it can outperform factory production.
Network production looks like Threadless, a tshirt company that has a network of designers. The physical shirts can be made in a factory process, but the design that makes them interesting is created by a network of creatives. We can also think of aspects of the sharing economy as network production even though it is less about physical goods. It too uses uniqueness as a winning edge. Airbnb (for all the gripes we may have about community impacts and exploited sharers) beat out hotels in short order by allowing people to charge for sharing their property. Networks do a better job of creating, producing, and delivering unique objects and experiences to those that desire them.
Just as factory production didn't fully replace craft production, network production will not eliminate the need for some factory production. But it may help limit it to only that which does it best (where best is defined by the current ethical and cultural preference).
I think a lot about network production, but often from different angles. I marvel at the shift in organizations as part of the Social Era, where more organizations leverage resources, including people and their creativity, without keeping them inside the firm boundary of the company. I am amazed by the work Herman Wagter has shared with me from Ton Van Asseldonk with insights into the math of productivity or the need to be only a tad bit more complex than the challenge or competition.
And I am astounded and delighted by the work that Cameron Burgess has taken on with Billions to Trillions. We might say that it goes beyond network production to network markets, creating the bazaar for funders to loosely coordinate in addressing major challenges that none could do alone while also creating a market for actors to come together to be rewarded for swarming on the challenge. Nobody can fund the entirety of the water issues or other millenium development goals, but together, in a distributed system with adequate reliability, we might do it together.
I feel inspired.