New Approaches to the Improvement of Coordination Mechanisms
PDF (Русский)
PDF

Keywords

digitalization
coordination of activities
contextual changes
hierarchies
mental model
mechanism of coordination

How to Cite

ParinovS. (2022). New Approaches to the Improvement of Coordination Mechanisms. Foresight and STI Governance, 16(4), 82-89. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2022.4.82.89

Abstract

The intensity and scale of communication between people, which have grown significantly over the past three decades, have not yet led to comparable improvements in the coordination of the activities of socioeconomic agents. One of the reasons is the lack of a full-fledged digital transformation of coordination mechanisms. Therefore, an urgent scientific task is to determine methodological approaches for the full digitalization of coordination processes. Cognitive sciences offer a fundamental description of the processes of socioeconomic coordination in the form of a shared mental model of participants in joint activities. Based on this, the concept of coordinating the activity of agents, which is the basis of all coordination processes, is defined. This approach made it possible to identify and analyze the main elements of the fundamental process of coordinating activities, as well as to determine the opportunities for its digitalization. This paper discusses the opportunity to create a unified coordination mechanism based on computer technologies, which, on the one hand, could replace the traditional market and hierarchical mechanisms, and on the other hand, could be used to coordinate all types of joint activities, including non-economic ones.

https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2022.4.82.89
PDF (Русский)
PDF

References

Adler P.S. (2001) Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, 12(2), 215-234. http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~padler/research/MHT-2.pdf, дата обращения 07.06.2022.

Antonelli C. (2011) The economic complexity of technological change: knowledge interaction and path dependence. In: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change (ed. C. Antonelli), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 3-62.

Badke-Schaub P., Neumann A., Lauche K., Mohammed S. (2007) Mental models in design teams: A valid approach to performance in design collaboration? CoDesign, 3(1), 5-20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880601170768

Crowston K., Rubleske J., Howison J. (2015) Coordination theory: A ten-year retrospective. In: Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations (eds. P. Zhang, D.F. Galletta), New York: Routledge, pp. 134-152. https://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=istpub, дата обращения 19.07.2022.

Elliott M. (2006) Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. M/C Journal, 9(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2599

Elliott M. (2016) Stigmergic Collaboration: A Framework for Understanding and Designing Mass Collaboration. In: Mass Collaboration and Education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series (eds. U. Cress, J. Moskaliuk, H. Jeong), vol. 16, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London, New York: Springer, pp. 65-84. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13536-6_4

Fagerberg J., Srholec M. (2008) National innovation systems, capabilities and economic Development. Research Policy, 37(9), 1417-1435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.06.003

Heylighen F. (2016) Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 4-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.4479.5044

Johnson-Laird P.N. (1980) Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive Science, 4(1), 71-115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0401_4

Malone T.W., Crowston K. (1994) The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1), 87-119. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/, дата обращения 19.08.2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/174666.174668

Mantzavinos C., North D.C., Shariq S. (2004) Learning, institutions, and economic performance. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 75-84. https://philarchive.org/archive/MANLIA-3, дата обращения 22.07.2021.

Marsh L., Onof C. (2008) Stigmergic epistemology, stigmergic cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1-2), 136-149. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/10004/1/3z2fx4r7prqwob3vfdq.pdf, дата обращения 28.06.2022.

Mathieu J.E., Heffner T.S., Goodwin G.F., Salas E., Cannon-Bowers J.A. (2000) The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273-283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

Metcalfe S., Foster J. (eds.) (2004) Evolution and Economic Complexity, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Mohammed S., Ferzandi L., Hamilton K. (2010) Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of Management, 36(4), 876-910. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309356804

Nielsen M.M., Jordanoski Z. (2020) Digital transformation, governance and coordination models: A comparative study of Australia, Denmark and the Republic of Korea. In: Proceedings of the 21st Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (eds. S.-J. Eom, J. Lee), New York: Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 285-293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3396956.3396987

Powell W.W. (1991) Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, pp. 265-276. http://habibisir.lecture.ub.ac.id/files/2016/09/Neither-Market-Nor-Hierarchy-Network-Forms-of-Organizations.pdf, дата обращения 17.02.2022.

Provan K.G., Kenis P. (2008) Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229-252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015

Salas E., Sims D.E., Burke C.S. (2005) Is there a big five in teamwork? Small Group Research, 36(5), 555-599. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496405277134

Weigand H., Van der Poll F., de Moor A. (2003) Coordination through communication. Paper presented at the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling (LAP 2003), Tilburg, The Netherlands, July 1-2, 2003. https://pure.uvt.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/517398/LAP2003poll.pdf, дата обращения 16.06.2022.

Власова Н.Ю., Молокова Е.Л. (2019) Механизмы координации стейкхолдеров рынка высшего образования: теоретические подходы к идентификации. Управленец, 10(2), 21-30. http://upravlenets.usue.ru/images/78/3.pdf, дата обращения 18.03.2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29141/2218-5003-2019-10-2-3

Дементьев В.Е., Евсюков С.Г., Устюжанина Е.В. (2017) Гибридные формы организации бизнеса: к вопросу об анализе межфирменных взаимодействий. Российский журнал менеджмента, 15(1), 89-122. https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/gibridnye-formy-organizatsii-biznesa-k-voprosu-ob-analize-mezhfirmennyh-vzaimodeystviy, дата обращения 15.04.2022.

Паринов С.И. (2020) Общая теория согласования социально-экономической деятельности: коллективные ментальные модели (Электронный препринт Munich Personal RePEc Archive). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/112147/, дата обращения 15.04.2022.

Паринов С.И. (2021) Основания общей теории социально-экономической координации (Электронный препринт Munich Personal RePEc Archive). https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/110667/ ), дата обращения 15.04.2022.

Полтерович В. М. (2018) К общей теории социально-экономического развития. Часть 1. География, институты или культура? Вопросы экономики, 11, 5-26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2018-11-5-26

Ходаков В.Е., Соколова Н.А., Кирийчук Д.Л. (2014) О развитии основ теории координации сложных систем. Проблеми iнформацiйних технологiй, 2, 12-21. http://epr.kntu.net.ua/136/1/02.pdf, дата обращения 18.05.2022.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.