The theory of small world contributes to the study of complex systems in the area of innovation.
Complex systems can be studied in terms of the interactions among their components. The “shape” of the observed behavior can tell if the phenomena result from a “plan” regulating the interactions, if the interactions are random but present a feedback regulation mechanisms (causal), or if the phenomena do not depend from interactions among the elements of the set.
The implication is that any business has to distinguish itself from its competitors and, at the same time, to make sure that what it offers fi ts seamlessly in the environ- ment so that the users can interact with it easily. In other words, enterprises should leverage the technology available to them, including telecommunications, to diver- sify on the one hand and to conceive products and services that add value to their ecosystem, on the other.
If the world is converging, centralized and uniform management architectures would be better. If, on the contrary, the world is moving toward a multitude of loosely interconnected environments each growing in diversity and overlapping with others in a multidimensional space,* we would be better off by looking at autonomic man- agement strategies.
The comparison between Darwinian evolution of species and technology evolu- tion is consistent with the statistics and nondeterministic laws and phenomena regu- lating aggregations (or systems) [2] known as Small Worlds. According to the small world concept, a multitude of elements loosely interacting with one another will be able to interconnect and establish an ecosystem in a dynamic equilibrium. The study of these Small Worlds systems can be applied to both the model of Darwinian biological evolution and to the evolution of technology-based product and services. In the case of the Darwinian evolution, the interactions are those of the various species competing for resources in the ecosystem and resulting in an ambient equi- librium. In the business world, the interactions are among the scientifi c, economic, social, and cultural domains for the contention for basic resources. The box “Small Worlds” presents the similarities between the Darwinian evolution and the small world theory (to whom we can refer for a mathematical interpretation of both Darwinian and technology evolution).
* Multidimensionality is crucial in this discussion. Ecosystems are not overlapping by geographical
contiguity or proximity, rather they overlap in the use of resources, in the adoption of different strate- gies for harvesting resources, and in the impact their growth can have on immaterial aspects such as culture, policies, and concerns. In the past, telephone companies used to protect themselves from con- tiguous ecosystems, for example, those of other operators in neighboring markets. Now, they have to pay attention to other players such as Google that is playing in a completely different ecosystem but whose “free to the end-user” culture is changing the rules of the game in far distant ecosystems.
In the case of a plan, we have an “ordered system”; in the case of random- ness, we talk about “small worlds.” The set of interactions can be plotted into curves having the shape of a power distribution [2]. If the interactions have no infl uence on the behavior of the overall system, we talk about chaotic systems and the observed behavior can be plotted on curves having a Gaussian shape.
We know that living ecosystems behave according to a power line curve (distribution), even though evolution is steered by interactions among the species, most of the time random interactions, sometime causal, creating feed- back. This is true also if we look at the global evolution of ecosystems and species based on the Darwinian Theory. It seems also to be the case for the technology evolution, at least this is what emerges from a research carried out by the Turin Polytechnic based on the date generated by a study on technology evolution carried out in the European cooperative project FISTERA [3].
This result prompted comparison between Darwinian evolution and tech- nology evolution. Both refer to complex systems with complex interactions, mostly random but each potentially creating feedbacks rippling through the ecosystem that can be analyzed with a statistical approach. Both comply with a set of rules dictating the possible evolution, and strengthening or weakening the effect of interactions.
If we consider a technology such as the display of images using a CRT, we see that in its 50 years’ history, the quality of products has improved signifi - cantly. Images used to have an oval shape and it has become perfectly squared, thanks to better control of the electronic beam. Color displays have displaced black and white monitors, and chip technologies, digitalization, and micropro- cessors have sustained this evolution. At the same time, new technologies have appeared in the visualization ecosystem, based on novel approaches, although still making use of those chips that led to the improvement of the display on the cathode tube. These new approaches did not improve image quality but pro- duced thinner screens, a characteristic that has become the reason of choice for the buyer, leading to the progressive disappearance of the CRT.
Besides, in the display ecosystem, the advent of HD has recently become an important factor in steering the evolution. TV evolution, after several turns, took the path of digital signals. This was possible thanks to the availability of low-cost microprocessors capable of compressing over 600 million bits/s into about 15 million/s. Even though the HD is so much more pleasing to see than the normal defi nition TV, HD is going to fl ank the normal display for several years before the latter disappears. This is also a good news for the ecosystem value since HD can be offered at a premium price (that would not be possible if it were a mere substitution of the existing one). A signifi cant portion of the content produced by the Majors is in low defi nition. The competition between standard and high defi nition TV is regulated by the inertia to replace the TV set that in turns depends on the price of the set and the availability of appealing HD content. Forces pushing toward accelerating or delaying the change-over are by far of economic nature (production and buying) and are further infl uenced