This document discusses how network-based arrangements are gaining importance in organizing production and innovation. It outlines two models: (1) Exchange platforms that facilitate interactions between suppliers and demand through resource orchestration, algorithmic governance, and network effects; and (2) Producer-driven innovation that increases economies of scale through hierarchical control. However, network arrangements also allow alternatives like peer production that enable grassroots or commons-based innovation outside of digital capitalism. While challenging, these alternatives present opportunities for inclusive growth that do not rely on platforms of the digital capitalist system.

1. Digitale Transformation: Neue Formen des
Organisierens von Produktion und Innovation
Thomas Gegenhuber
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg / JKU Linz
Tagung FES Stiftung Niedersachsen. Digitaler Kapitalismus: Mehr Wohlstand oder sozialer Rückschritt?

2. Das Netzwerk als
Organisationsmetapher feiert ihr
Comeback

3. http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor
“Factory operations were typically led by multiple, independent
internal contractors, each of whom hired and managed their own
crews (…), contracted with the owners to supply a given amount
of output for a given price, and relied on their own traditional
methods to achieve that output“ (Bodrožić &Adler, 2017: 11)

4. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Organizational_chart
“10,000 individuals who comprise the workforce of a steel mill
could be individual entrepreneurs whose interpersonal
transaction are mediated through a network of market or
contractual relationships“. But the transaction costs are too high
in comparison to a bureaucracy enabling control through forging
stable employment relations with the workers (Ouchi, 1980: 134)

5. Information technology as enabler
‣ Rapidly transmitting information
‣ Gather and process contributions of distributed actors
‣ (Re-)Programmability
‣ „Digitization“ - information shadows
‣ Modular architectures
‣ New infrastructures
Tapscott, 2006; Baldwin and Clark, 2000; Lakhani et al., 2013; Doan et al., 2011

6. “If the industrial revolution was organized around the
factory, today’s changes are organized around (…) digital
platforms“ (Kenney and Zysman, 2016: 62)
Exchange
platforms
SupplyDemand
Bauer & Gegenhuber, 2015; Baldwin, 2017; Sundararajan, 2017

7. Purpose
Facilitating interaction between a
supply and demand-side
Resources
Resource orchestration
(mobilizing, sorting, evaluating)
Exchange platforms
Ansari and Munir, 2010; Baldwin, 2017; Bauer and Gegenhuber, 2015, 2017; Orlikowski and Scott, 2014; Kornberger 2017; Kornberger et al., 2017; Mair and Reischauer, 2017; Sundararajan, 2017; Van Alstyne et al., 2016
Management
Management as network-,
market- and community
organizing
Strategy
Increase network effects (e.g.
subsidies, incentives), quality of
interaction (i.e. trust, match),
adding additional interactions
Control
Prediction through probabilities;
algorithmic governance, interface
design (i.e architecture), rules

8. Purpose
Facilitating interaction between a
supply and demand-side
Resources
Resource orchestration
(mobilizing, sorting, evaluating)
Platforms and the firm
Control
Prediction through probabilities;
algorithmic governance, interface
design (i.e architecture), rules
Management
Management as market- and
community organizing
Strategy
Increase network effects (e.g.
subsidies, incentives), quality of
interaction (i.e. trust, match),
adding additional interactions
Producing and selling goods and
services
Increase economies of scale (i.e.
lower costs, reduce price), product
quality, user experience
Resource control (controlling a
series of activities of a value chain
from input to output)
Prediction through hierarchical
control, e.g. stable employment,
commanding assets
Management is (caring)
commanding
Ansari and Munir, 2010; Baldwin, 2017; Bauer and Gegenhuber, 2015, 2017; Orlikowski and Scott, 2014; Kornberger 2017; Kornberger et al., 2017; Mair and Reischauer, 2017; Sundararajan, 2017; Van Alstyne et al., 2016

9. Exchange
platforms
SupplyDemand
Bauer & Gegenhuber, 2015; Baldwin, 2017; Hinings et al., 2018; Sundararajan, 2017

10. Netzwerk-basierte Arrangements
gewinnen an Bedeutung für die
Produktion von Gütern und
Dienstleistungen
(=Verfahrensinnovation) sowie wie
neue Güter und Dienstleistungen
kreiert werden (=Produktinnovation)

11. Open innovation
Chesbrough, 2003; 2006

17. local moters & olli
Streetscooter
—> aus der community heraus, rasches design
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5ZNDggF2I

18. https://localmotors.com/meet-olli/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K564rXrlZbc

19. Open innovation
Chesbrough, 2003; 2006

20. von Hippel, 2005; 2017

21. Self-rewarded
creators
Collaborative evaluation/
replication/improvement
Peer-to-peer-
diffusion
Free Innovation Paradigm
Market
research
R&D
Market
diffusion
Producer Innovation Paradigm
Production
von Hippel, 2005; 2017
Two institutional logics for organizing innovation:
‚grassroots‘ (or commons-based) and the
capitalist corporation
Compete
Copy
Cooperate
Complement

22. Netzwerk-basierte Arrangements
ermöglichen wirtschaftliche
Produktion abseits des digitalen
Kapitalismus - eine Chance und
Herausforderung.

23. I II
III
Inclusive growth
Brand Eins 03/17, Ramge & Meyer-Schönberger, 2017; platform.coop, 2017; Tapscott & Tapscott, 2017

24. Fazit
‣ Netzwerkbasierte Arrangements gewinnen an
Bedeutung in der Organisation der Produktion von
Gütern und Dienstleistungen sowie im innovieren
dieser.
‣ Netzwerkbasierte Arrangements ermöglichen
Alternativen (z.B. digitale Genossenschaftsplattformen)
zum digitalen Plattformkapitalismus. Große
Herausforderung und Chance.

25. Thomas Gegenhuber
@gegenhuber
Leuphana Universität Lüneburg / JKU Linz
ARS Electronica Linz 2017

28. Open innovation
Chesbrough, 2003; 2006