The Role of Coherence in the Coevolution between Institutions and Technologies

1
The Role of Coherence in the Coevolution between
Institutions and Technologies

• Daniel Scholten
• 12 June 2009

2
The Need for Coevolution

• Theories on innovation need a coevolution
  between institutions and technologies to ensure
  the performance and success of new technologies
• Nelson 1994 to develop a new set of
  technologies, a nation requires a set of
  institutions compatible with and supportive of
  them. The ones suitable for an earlier set of
  fundamental technologies may be quite
  inappropriate for the new
• However, same theories are not able to generate
  how governments can achieve coevolution what can
  and should governments do when and how?
• No means to compare or match institutions and
  technologies
• Not sufficiently specified how to facilitate
  alignment

3
No means?

• Studies by Finger, Kunneke, Groenewegen and
  Menard on coherence seem to overcome the first
  obstacle in their studies on the effects of
  liberalization in networks
• Explore the possibilities and impediments of
  using coherence to overcome the first obstacle
  to the operationalization of coevolution as a
  policy objective
• The role of coherence in the alignment of
  institutions to technologies
• Coevolution is core perspective and coherence the
  addition
• Technical change is point of departure
  institutions need to align

4
Coevolution Elaborated

• Theories on coevolution Technologies ??
  Institutions
• Technologies (ideas, artifacts) or sets of
  technologies (systems, networks)
• Institutions as governance or more
• Starting point technical life-cycles
• Radical and incremental change and phases
• Difference between radical innovation and
  dominant design
• Adding institutions socio-technical change
• Reciprocal influences and alternating phases
• Some questions remain
• How should institutions and technologies be
  represented to study coevolution?
• What is the effect of technologies on
  institutions (and vice versa)?

5
Matching Institutions to Technologies

• Use coherence as design principle to define and
  compare
• Coherence literature focuses on infrastructures,
  especially networks
• Technologies critical technical functions
  (interoperability, interconnection, capacity
  management and system management)
• Institutions mode of organization (of the
  ownership, vertical integration, regulatory
  framework and market structure)
• Key public/private mode of organization needs to
  match criticality of technical functions ? notion
  of critical transactions allows comparison and
  matching
• 12 modes of organization discussed along 6 levels
  of criticality

6
Assessment

• Possibilities and impediments
• Coherence applies to networks not individual
  products
• Coherences definition must be used for
  coevolution as well
• Coherence is static comparative no process
  recommendation
• More operationalization required on variety and
  measurement
• Needs to cope with network (and MoO) changes in a
  dynamic setting
• First three inherent conditions to the use of
  coherence for alignment

7
Assessment

• Last two obstacles need to be dealt with
• Variety pre-selection based on national
  characteristics
• Measurement replace 12 MoO by 4 general
  paradigms based on public or private network
  ownership and operation (or 6?)
• Dynamic setting techno-institutional roadmap of
  snapshots
• Coherence harbors great possibilities if
  conditions are not an obstacle

8

• Questions ?
• Thank You!