Specialization Can Drive the Evolution of Modularity

Organismal development and many cell biological processes are organized in a modular fashion, where regulatory molecules form groups with many interactions within a group and few interactions between groups. Thus, the activity of elements within a module depends little on elements outside of it. Modularity facilitates the production of heritable variation and of evolutionary innovations. There is no consensus on how modularity might evolve, especially for modules in development. We show that modularity can increase in gene regulatory networks as a byproduct of specialization in gene activity. Such specialization occurs after gene regulatory networks are selected to produce new gene activity patterns that appear in a specific body structure or under a specific environmental condition. Modules that arise after specialization in gene activity comprise genes that show concerted changes in gene activities. This and other observations suggest that modularity evolves because it decreases interference between different groups of genes. Our work can explain the appearance and maintenance of modularity through a mechanism that is not contingent on environmental change. We also show how modularity can facilitate co-option, the utilization of existing gene activity to build new gene activity patterns, a frequent feature of evolutionary innovations

Exploring the Evolution of Modularity in Gene Regulatory Networks

Modularity has been observed in biological systems of all shapes and sizes. Intuitively, we recognize that this component-based structure can increase efficiency and robustness in a system. Gene regulatory networks are a perfect example of a biological system that exhibits modularity, however, just how this modularity evolved is still unresolved. The research of Espinosa-Soto and Wagner supports the hypothesis the modularity observed in biological gene regulatory networks evolved as a result of specialization in gene activity (Espinosa-Soto & Wagner, 2010). By manipulating the implementation of their research we may further explore the conditions that drive the evolution of modularity. Specifically, this study explores how the robustness of a network and use of biased mutation may influence how modularity is evolved in gene regulatory networks

Limits to Modularity: A Review of the Literature and Evidence from Chip Design

This working paper has been prepared as part of the East-West Center's research project on Globalization of Knowledge Work: Why is Chip Design Moving to Asia. In this paper, Dieter assesses what we know about the limits to modularity and their impact on firm organization and industry structure. He focuses on evidence form chip design, drawing on interview on 2002 and 2003 with a sample of 60 companies and 15 research institutions that are involved in chip design in the US, Taiwan, Korea, China and Malaysia. It is summarized "stylized" propositions of the modularity literature that are well-established, as well as predictions that are controversial. In addition, important limits to modularity and relevant management responses were reviewed.

Problem solving and the co-ordination of innovative activities

In the context of increasingly globalized markets, ever more complex supply chains and international manufacturing networks, corporate decision-making processes involve more and more actors, variables and criteria. This is a challenge for corporate head quarters. Many have argued that the role once attributed to the integrated innovative organisation and its R&D laboratories is increasingly associated with the functioning of networks of specialised innovators. The aim of this paper is to argue that the role of large firms may have changed, but it is far from disappeared. It looks at the interplay of increasing knowledge specialisation, the development of products of increasing complexity that perform a widening range of functionalities, and the emergence and diffusion of new design strategies for both products and organisations, namely modularity. The emergence of modularity as a product and organisational design strategy is clearly connected to recent trends in organisational design. Modularity would allow the decoupling of complex artifacts into simpler, self-contained modules. Each module would, at the extreme, become the sole business of a specialised trade. This paper builds upon the idea that there are cognitive limits to this process of modularisation: what kinds of problems firms solve, and how they solve them, set limits to the extent of division of labour among firms. We draw implications of such limits for both management and economic theory.large firms, knowledge specialisation, complex products, modularity,

Combating catastrophic forgetting with developmental compression

Generally intelligent agents exhibit successful behavior across problems in several settings. Endemic in approaches to realize such intelligence in machines is catastrophic forgetting: sequential learning corrupts knowledge obtained earlier in the sequence, or tasks antagonistically compete for system resources. Methods for obviating catastrophic forgetting have sought to identify and preserve features of the system necessary to solve one problem when learning to solve another, or to enforce modularity such that minimally overlapping sub-functions contain task specific knowledge. While successful, both approaches scale poorly because they require larger architectures as the number of training instances grows, causing different parts of the system to specialize for separate subsets of the data. Here we present a method for addressing catastrophic forgetting called developmental compression. It exploits the mild impacts of developmental mutations to lessen adverse changes to previously-evolved capabilities and `compresses' specialized neural networks into a generalized one. In the absence of domain knowledge, developmental compression produces systems that avoid overt specialization, alleviating the need to engineer a bespoke system for every task permutation and suggesting better scalability than existing approaches. We validate this method on a robot control problem and hope to extend this approach to other machine learning domains in the future

Innovation processes and industrial districts

In this survey, we examine the operations of innovation processes within industrial districts by exploring the ways in which differentiation, specialization, and integration affect the generation, diffusion, and use of new knowledge in such districts. We begin with an analysis of the importance of the division of labour and then investigate the effects of social embeddedness on innovation. We also consider the effect of forms of organization within industrial districts at various stages of product and process life, and we examine the negative aspects of embeddedness for innovation. We conclude with a discussion of the possible consequences of new information and communications technologies on innovation in industrial districts

The Two Faces of Open Innovation: NetworkExternalities and Learning.

In this paper I differentiate between two types of benefits of open innova- tion. Network externalities e¤ect happens when open innovation increases the participation of one group of users which increases the value of adoption for another group of users. Learning e¤ect happens when economic actors increase their knowledge through access to external sources of knowledge. I investigate how each effect can be dominant depending on nature of products, by drawing upon previous research in product modularity. In addition I discuss the fac- tors which will strengthen or weaken the e¤ects of each dimension. The main variables which influence learning are, tacitness of knowledge, technological op- portunities, appropriability of knowledge and turbulence. Network externalities e¤ect can be strengthened by increased user innovation.

Change, Coordination, and Capabilities

Empirical studies on coordination of economic activities focused on the two polar cases of governance mode, namely vertical integration and market exchanges. Whether firms should be vertically integrated or lever market exchanges in the face of change is, however, debated. Two positions have emerged. Some scholars argue that the vertically integrated firm is the appropriate mode of coordination when change occurs, while market exchanges are more appropriate for dealing with stable contexts (Teece, 1996). On the other hand, Harrigan (1984, 1985) contends that firms should rely on market exchanges when technological change renders upstream capabilities obsolete. Based on two case studies of the aircraft engine industry, this paper introduces the concept of systems integration as the primary coordination mechanism in-between markets and hierarchies that firms employ to cope with change. The focus is on multitechnology settings. Multitechnology, multicomponent products intensify the coordination efforts for firms developing them and therefore provide a vantage point to study coordination modes in the face of technological change. The paper argues that systems integration, as a coordination mechanism, comprises a set of different technological and organizational skills, ranging from component assembly through the understanding and integration of the technological disciplines underlying a product, to project management. It shows that from a competitive point of view, systems integration is most appropriately understood as knowledge integration. Systems integrating firms are understood as those organizations that set up the network of actors involved in the industry and lead it from an organizational and technological viewpoint.technological change, systems integration, knowledge integration, vertical integration, market exchanges

The Economics Of System Integration: Toward An Evolutionary Interpretation.

--