Non rivalry and complementarity in computer software

In this paper we contend that – contrary to what argued by a vast part of the literature – computer software and, more in general, digital goods (i.e. symbolic strings on an electronic medium with some eco- nomic value) do not present the characteristics of a public good as they do not suffer from lack of rivarly and excludability any more than other durable goods which are regularly allocated on competitive markets. We argue instead that the “market allocation problem” – if any – with digital goods does not arise from their public nature but from some pe- culiar characteristics of the production technology. The latter presents the nature of a typical problem solving activity as far as the produc- tion of the first unit is concerned, this means that innovative activities in computer software are characterized by high degrees of interdepen- dencies, cumulativeness, sequentiality, path dependence and, more in general, sub-optimality arising from imperfect problem decompositions. As far as the production of further units is concerned, we observe in- stead high (but not infinite) expansibility and perfect codification (lack of any tacit dimension) which make diffusion costs rapidly fall. Given such claims, we argue that a standard “Coasian” approach to property rights, designed to cope with the externalities of semi-public goods may not be appropriate for computer software, as it may decrease both ex-ante incentives to innovation and ex-post efficiency of diffusion. On the other hand the institutional definition of property rights may strongly influence the patterns of technological evolution and division of labor in directions which are not necessarily optimal.Intellectual property; hierarchies; innovation; software; digital goods

Group Inquiry

Group agents can act, they can have knowledge. How should we understand the species of collective action which aims at knowledge? In this paper, I present an account of group inquiry. This account faces two challenges: making sense of how large-scale distributed activities might be a kind of group action, and understanding the division of labour involved in group inquiry. In the first part of the paper, I argue that existing accounts of group action face problems dealing with large-scale group actions, and propose a minimal alternative account. In the second part of the paper, I draw on an analogy between inquiry and conversation, arguing that work by Robert Stalnaker and Craige Roberts helps us to think about the division of epistemic labour. In the final part of the paper I put the accounts of group action and inquiry together, and consider how to think about group knowledge, deep ignorance, and the different kinds of division of labour

Some Considerations about Decisions and Decision-Makers in Hospital Ethics Committees

This paper presents a brief history of the development of hospital ethics committees. Following the introduction, areas of decision vulnerability are considered. Areas of potential concern include committee composition, including the influence of experts upon the decisions and decision makers. Also considered are bounded rationality, herd behavior and informational cascades. The paper ends with some suggestions about decisions and decision-makers for hospital ethics committees

Skill Specialization and the Formation of Collaboration Networks

Problem solving and innovation are important in many contexts, including academic research, policy-making, product development, and entrepreneurship. Broadly speaking, innovators come in two varieties: specialists and generalists. Specialists are people who have a deep knowledge of a very narrow subject area. Generalists are people whose knowledge ranges across multiple subject areas. In this paper, I examine the role of skill specialization in collaboration network structure, and individual position in the collaborative community. Using a model of skill specialization and collaboration network formation, I show that as disci- plines become less insular, the collaboration network becomes increasingly domi- nated by a small number of individuals. I compare specialists and generalists with the same number of skills and show that specialists will tend to have more links in the network than generalists with the same number of skills. However, I the show that generalists are more likely than specialists to occupy key central positions in the network

A Model of Collaboration Network Formation with Heterogenous Skills

Collaboration networks provide a method for examining the highly heterogeneous structure of collaborative communities. However, we still have limited theoretical understanding of how individual heterogeneity relates to network heterogeneity. The model presented here provides a framework linking an individual's skill set to her position in the collaboration network, and the distribution of skills in the population to the structure of the collaboration network as a whole. This model suggests that there is a non-trivial relationship between skills and network position: individuals with a useful combination of skills will have a disproportionate number of links in the network. Indeed, in some cases, an individual's degree is non-monotonic in the number of skills she has--an individual with very few skills may outperform an individual with many. Special cases of the model suggest that the degree distribution of the network will be skewed, even when the distribution of skills is uniform in the population. The degree distribution becomes more skewed as problems become more difficult, leading to a community dominated by a few high-degree superstars. This has striking implications for labor market outcomes in industries where production is largely the result of collaborative effort

Strategies for Creative Connections: Fomenting Technological Change

The pace of technological change in the world within which we live and work is increasing at an exponential rate. This in turn causes turbulent change within society, and indeed within social relationships. In a real sense it is the design teams who act as change agents. In the future these teams will need to alter their strategies for introducing even more change. As the artefactsâ designers and design teams develop, which fulfil societal wants needs and desires, become more technologically advanced and complex, there is an increasing need to make creative connections between diverse design issues and diverse resources. From both a technical and human perspective these creative connections will require new creative strategies. This paper will propose some strategies for developing novel non-deterministic relationships between issues and people in order to develop creative connections. These in turn may lead to creative artefacts for the benefit of society. Further, this paper will propose possible empirical methodologies for testing these suggested strategies. The utility of randomness and our ability/inability to cope with it is seen as a central theme for developing creative connections. Moreover, it will be argued that as higher and higher levels of complexity occur greater creative opportunities will occur as well. While the proposed strategies remain untested, the central focus of this paper will discuss the need for this research and the implications for both design practice and, more importantly, design education

The power of diversity over large solution spaces

We consider a team of agents with limited problem-solving ability facing a disjunctive task over a large solution space. We provide sufficient conditions for the following four statements. First, two heads are better than one: a team of two agents will solve the problem even if neither agent alone would be able to. Second, teaming up does not guarantee success: if the agents are not sufficiently creative, even a team of arbitrary size may fail to solve the problem. Third, "defendit numerus": when the agent's problem-solving ability is adversely affected by the complexity of the solution space, the solution of the problem requires only a mild increase in the size of the team. Fourth, groupthink impairs the power of diversity: if agents' abilities are positively correlated, a larger team is necessary to solve the problem.Problem-solving; Bounded rationality; Theory of teams; Groupthink