What is the role of emergence and serendipity in networks? More significantly, what is the role of both of these with regard to innovation in networks?
I define serendipity as those synchronous moments when different trend lines converge in an unexpected manner that lead to innovation. My view may not conform to the official definition of serendipity which is "an aptitude for making desirable discoveries by accident." An example might be the discovery of penicillin. I am more inclined toward the idea that we put in place conditions that lead to the emergence of innovations which we can then call serendipity.
Emergence is the way patterns emerge via the collective actions of many individual entities. It is the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems. (Goldstein, 1999) Whenever you have a multitude of individuals interacting with one another, there often comes a moment when disorder gives way to order and something new emerges: a pattern, a decision, a structure or a change in direction (Miller 2010) This could appear as a new grouping, a new idea or a new initiative.
Creating a conducive environment for emergence often involves creating and holding the container in which the many interactions take place. It involves provoking what goes on in the container and supporting movement towards attractive directions.
Members of a network can support these conducive conditions. In one network, senior staff members of the network each had a portfolio of liaison responsibilities. They created unstructured time in meetings to allow for digressions - going off topic and off of the agenda. They were out and about listening to conversations. They would mingle with folks at different member institution gatherings rather than just seeing them at network meetings. In both formal and informal gatherings, they identified and supported "what if" conversations. "What if we took a joint approach?" "What if we combined our resources?" They kept their ears to the ground and listened to other voices. They looked for trends and fed them back at the meetings. They might say, "did you know that other people are talking about this?"
Not only did these people in the above network help to identify, circulate and bring in ideas from within the network, they also helped to bring in ideas from outside the network. They read emails and visited other networks. They learned how others addressed things so that they could bring these in when an opportunity presented itself.
These people acted like honey bees gathering ideas from flower to flower. They helped to make connections of people and ideas that could fuel emergence. They supported the system in exploring new directions. Ideally this role can be played by all network members.
The result of planned and unplanned interaction and collaboration in a network environment is that innovation can take place. One network leader used the term "innovative moment" or "revolutionary moment" to describe the epochal changes that occurred throughout the history of the network when emergence led to new innovations.
The internal structure of a network can specifically support emergence, serendipity. Certainly the diversity and density of conections can support emergence and serendipity and the flow of knowledge. In the end, a network like any other entity must balance planfulness and emergence. Planfulness requires some degree of governance or coordination at a meta level. This then allows for new ideas to emerge or fortuitious accidents to take place.
Comments