1973
Networking Concept as Applied to Information Systems
- / -
Notes for a confarence on the networking concept of the International Referral
Service of the United Nations Environment Programme (Heidelberg, December 1973)
Networking principles; an attempt at a set of guidelines.
Profile of information network in terms of interactions with
different users.
Summary of information network strategy components.
Possible contribution of the UIA to the UNEP Information network.
Networking principles; an attempt at a set of guidelines.
[Text adapated from: The World Network of Organizations. International Associations.,
24. 1. 1972, p. 10-24 and The Nature of Organizations in Transnational Networks
(Paper presented at the conference of the International Studies Association,
Dallas, 1972) and Inter-organizational Relationships; in search of a new style
(conclusion of a seminar report to reflect on the network of international associations)]
The problem for transnational organizations is to develop a way of increasing
the dynamism and strength of their networks without retreating to the unsuccessful
formula of the coordinating umbrella body -- which is probably following the
dinosaurs into social history. The following sections attempt to identify some
characteristics of the new approach required. The challenge is to develop information
systems which facilitate and catalyze [rather than organize) the development
of such networks to the benefit of all participating bodies and the social system
within which they function.
Principles:
-
Networks of information and other flows tend to develop wherever there
is a need for contact between existing social actors whether or not the
action or the communication is approved. The network is a more adequate
response to a complex problem environment than a minimally and formally
connected set of hierarchical institutions. If necessary networks become
unofficial and by-pass or undermine accepted channels to create adequate
contact.
- Networks decrease in effectiveness and in attractiveness to potential participants
to the extent that any particular body or group of bodies within the network
attempts to structure it to favour their own ends or their own conception
of the nature of the programes which participants should undertake.
- The budget load of operating a network for the benefit of one body or group
of bodies increases with the number of organizations encoded in the data system,
unless means are found toinvolve such organizations as full participants
so that it is in their own interest to ensure the dynamism of the network's
operations to contribute data and possibly funds.
Style:
The network style may tentatively be characterized by:
-
emphasis on the contribution of special knowledge, competence, and experience
by any appropriate transnational organization to the common task of any
ad hoc group of transnational organizations set up for a specific task.
- the "realistic" nature of the program of any transnational organization
which is seen as set by its perception of the most significant problems for
which it is competent, in terms of the information which it has managed to
receive.
- the adjustment and continual redefinition by each transnational organization
of its programs through interaction with and in response to others: the net
work is conceived as constantly changing and evolving, sub-networks of transnational
organizations with a special interest in common come into existence for any
required period; transnational organizations may each be participating in
any number of such partial networks; partial networks are deliberately terminated
when no longer useful.
- the shedding of "responsibility" as a limited field of rights,
obligations and methods (e.g. world problems may not be systematically ignored
as being some other organization's sole responsibility)
- the spread of commitment of a transnational organization to society on
a whole beyond any technical definition of programs or legal definitions of
constitution or statutes
- a network structure of control, authority, and communication; the sanctions
which apply to the individual transnational association's conduct in its working
relations derive more from presumed community of interest with the rest ofthe
network in the survival and evolution of the open society, and less from any
temporary contractual relationship between the organization and some body
recognized as coordinator for the program in question.
-
omniscience no longer imputed to key organizations in the network; knowledge
about the economic, social, cultural, scientific, technical, etc. problems
of the immediate task may be located anywhere in the organizational network;
this location may, if appropriate, became the ad hoc centre of control,
authority, and communication for that task.
-
lateral rather than vertical direction of communication through the
network, communication between organizations of different status; consultative
contacts are emphasized with each participant adjusting its programs in
consequence if it perceives such adjustment to be warranted
- a content of communication between bodies which consists of information
and advice rather than instructions and decisions
- commitment to the problems of the development of the open society is more
highly valued than loyalty and obedience to the individual transnational association
- importance and prestige attach to affiliation of the transnational organization
to professional, scientific, or cultural networks not directly concerned with
the transnational organization's immediate program tasks.
Each of these points concerning inter-organizational relations may require
some adjustment in the internal organization of the transnational organization
end more specifically to. the way the organization conceives itself. Although
comment has been restricted to the transnational association network, this
is clearly intimately related to the network of governmental agencies to that
of business enterprises and to that of the academic community.
Comment:
The organizational network is an "organic" form appropriate to
today's rapidlychanging conditions which constantly give rise to fresh problems
and unforeseen requirements for action -- requirements which cannot be rapidly
and satisfactorily distributed to organizations working in isolation within
rigidly defined programs. The network, permits all the decentralization necessary
to satisfy the need for autonomous organizational development and individual
initiative. It also provides for very rapid centralization, canalization,
and focusing of resources the moment any complex problem (or natural disaster)
emerges which requires the talents of a particular configuration or constellation
of transnational organizations (or other bodies). The centralization is only
binding on the transnational organizations concerned with the problem in question,
and for the period during which they have "common cause" and in
no way affects others in the network. The network is, furthermore multidimensional
in character since transnational organizations may centralize themselves to
different extents in many different partial networks and at the same time
decentralize (or disassociate] themselves on other issues.
The network is not "coordinated" by any body: the participating
bodies coordinate themselves so that one may speak of "autocoordination"
rather than coordination. Similarly, the network as a whole is not "directed"
or "controlled" by any body rather it is "self-directing"
and self-adapting.
|
Profile of Information Network in Terms of Interaction
with Different Users |
|
Summary of Information Network Strategy Components
Only the major strategic choices are indicated here, since many intermediate
options could not be detailed without obscuring the main points.
It should be noted that each of the following strategies could be envisaged:
-
either for one single program area (e.g. environment)
-
or for related program areas as recognized by the net work controller
-
or for program areas as considered relevant by users on on ongoing basis
Strategy l: Single-level (e.g. international or regional or national
or local)
1.1 Information is obtained by the network center in order to increase
the effectiveness of the center's own programs
| Types |
|
1.1 |
1.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
the typical closed information system in which, unless
massive finding is supplied, the data is always out of date and the
system unused (in preference to one-off studies with new data) |
Strategy 2: Multi-level (e.g. international and regional and national
and local)
2.1 Information supplied to the network center by bodies it recognizes
in order to increase the effectiveness of the center's own programs
| Types |
|
2.1.1 |
2.1.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
an ideal strategy for the center which rarely works because
there is no incentive for the contributing bodies to continue supplying
information -- they only receive in exchange the moral satisfaction
of having helped the center. |
2.2 Information supplied to the network center by bodies, recognized
by the center, in order to increase the effectiveness of the center's
own programs
| Types |
|
2.2.1 |
2.2.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
an ideal strategy oven less likely to succeed than 2.1,
because the contributing bodies do not even have the moral satisfaction
of being recognized by the network center |
2.3Information supplied to the network center by bodies, recognized
by the center, in order to increase the effectiveness of the center's
own programs
| Types |
|
2.3.1 |
2.3.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
an ideal strategy oven less likely to succeed than 2.1,
because the contributing bodies do not even have the moral satisfaction
of being recognized by the network center |
2.4Information supplied to the network center by bodies, recognized
by the center or not, in order to increase the effectiveness of
their own programs
| Types |
|
2.4.1 |
2.4.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
as for 2.3 but in this case the facilitative approach
is extended to bodies not formally recognized by the center. The center
must here assume that any body which seeks to participate in this
way must in sore way be contributing to the achievement of the center's
program objectives. Clearly since the barrier of recognition is removed,
many more bodies would be able to participate. Clearly the center
must allow for a certain amount of "wastage" but this should
be more than compensated by the increase in participation over 2.3 |
2.5 Information supplied by the network center to bodies it
recognizes in order to increase theeffectiveness of the center's own programs
| Types |
|
2.5.1 |
2.5.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
information is supplied to recognized bodies to help
than to perceive the most useful program, in the light of the political
and priority constraints imposed upon the center. The recognized bodies
are expected to act in accordance with the insights disseminated by
the center, to the benefit of the center's own programs. This strategy
may alienate many bodies which are motivated by problems or programa
which have not(yet) received theapprobation of the center. This strategy
does not encourage pariphery bodies to take any initiative and requires
that theyrespond toevery change in the priorities of the centre |
2.6Information supplied by the network center to bodies, recognized
by the center or not, in order to increase the effectiveness of
the center's own programs.
| Types |
|
2.6.1 |
2.6.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
as with 2.5, except that the strategy is even less likely to succeed
because the bodies in question are not even recognized. This strategy
can only succeed if accompanied by a powerful public relations program
by which "belief in the wisdom of the center is built up.
|
2.7Infomation supplied by the network center to bodies it recognizes
in order to increase the effectiveness of their own
programs
| Types |
|
2.7.1 |
2.7.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
this is the counterpart to 2.3. in which the center
actively seeks to supply the periphery bodies with information in
a form which enables them to improve the effectiveness of their own
programs. Again the canter must assume, particularly since it has
recognized the bodies, that their programs must be closely related
to the objectives of those of the center. This actively facilitative
attitude would be very attractive to bodies which it was hoped to
attract into the network. |
2.8Information supplied by the network canter to bodies, recognized
by the center or not, in order to increase the effectiveness of their
own programs
| Types |
|
2.8.1 |
2.8.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
as for 2.7, but in this case (as in 2.4) the center
must assume that any body responding to its information, whether recognized
or not must be interested in usingit to further objectivesclosely
related to those of the center. Again any wastage would be compensated
by themuch greater involvement of the periphery bodies. |
2.9 Information supplied at the network periphery by bodies
recognized by the center in order to increase the achievement of the center's
program objectives at that point on the periphery
| Types |
|
2.9.1 |
2.9.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
in terms of this strategy, the information network functions as
a system at the disposal of recognized bodies which allows then
to hold and process the information they need in order to further
the objectives of the center's programs as they are perceived by
the periphery. This strategy would be used to increase the effectiveness
of local bodies.
|
2.10Information supplied at the network periphery
by bodies, recognized by the center or not, in order to increase the achievement
of the center's program objectives at the point on the periphery
| Types |
|
2.10.1 |
2.10.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
as for 2.9, but in this case any body wishing to make
use of the system could do so provided that the use contributed in
some way towards the center's program objectives. Clearly this would
encourage more bodies to participate than 2.10. |
2.11 Information supplied at the network periphery by
bodies, recognized by the center, in order to increase the effectiveness
of their own programs
| Types |
|
2.11.1 |
2.11.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
in this case recognized bodies are encouraged to use the system
to increase the effectiveness of their own programs, the assumptionbeing
that, since they have been approved, their programs, whatever they
may be, must in some way contribute towards the center's program
objectives
|
2.12Information supplied at the network periphery by bodies,
recognized by the center or not, in order to increase the effectiveness
of their own programs
| Types |
|
2.12.1 |
2.12.2 |
| |
|
single
(eg governmental or nongovernmental) |
multiple
(eg governmental and business) |
| Purpose |
Policy/strategy |
|
|
| |
Program administration |
|
|
| |
Clearing house |
|
|
| |
Research/modelling |
|
|
| |
Education |
|
|
| |
Public information |
|
|
| Comment |
as for 2.11, but in this case (as in 2.4) the center
must assume that any periphery body that wants to use the system
must he in some way contributing towards its program objectives. Again
the wastage is compensated by the increased participation achievedsincetherecognitionbarriers
removed. |
Comment: the network center performs the function of processing theinformation
from bodies it recognizes in order to enable them to improve the
effectiveness of the proprams they have developed independently of
the center. The center must assume, partly because the body was
worth recognizing in the first place, that the programs it will
develop will
contribute to the center's program objectives. Because
of the facilitative policy adopted by the network center, more bodies
would participate through this strategy. (The center passively
receives information in this case, in contrast to 2.7)
Possible contribution of the Union of International Associations
to the UNEP information network
The unionofInternational Associations collects and processes information
on international organizations (ca.4000) and the world-wide problems with
which they are concerned. This information is being progressively stored
onto magnetic media from which a variety of typographically formatted reference
books are produced. The filestructureis such that programs can ho used to
retrieve particular kinds of data. It is possible that some uses of this
data base could beenvisaged in collaboration with UNEP.
Data base
1. Organizationdirectories
The main files already held on magnetic tape are:
-
international organization descriptions (English)
-
International organization descriptions (French)
-
7 indexes to the reference numbers of organizations
These files are used to produce the English and French editions of the 1000
page Yearbook of International Organizations.
Those organizations with environmental concerns have specially coded. The
entries for those organizations could be extracted into a special mini-directory.
This could also be done for the index references to the organizations selected.
2. International meeting calendars
It is proposed to use the existing system to process the data on some 2000
future meetings currently incorporated into the annual International
Congress Calendar and its monthly supplements.
As in the previous case, it could be possible to produce mini-calendars by
subject or other grouping.
3. International meeting report bibliographies
It is also proposed to use the existing system to process the bibliographical
data on the reports of the meetings which are incorporated into the Yearbook
of International Congress Proceedings.
As in the previous case, it could be possible to produce mini-bibliographies
by subject or other grouping.
4. World problem directories
Data input for the production of a Yearbook
of World Problems has already commended. This will use the existing system.
The data is made up of
-
descriptions of world-wide problems
-
responsible international organizations
-
cross-references between problems (of the type problem A aggravates
problemB; problem C is aggravated by problem B; problem E alleviates
problem D, etc.)
It is planned to includesome 3000-5000 problems.
As in the previous cases, mini-directories covering environmental problems
could be produced.
Facilities
1.It is hoped that it will be very shortly possible to permit bodies such
as UNEP specify what elements from the data base, constituted by the above
files, they wish have incorporated into a mini-directory of their own design.
2. It is hoped that it will facilitate introduction by the collaborating
body of its own specialmaterial,where the UIA date is consideredin any way
incomplete. In other words, at last minute edit facility.
|
