Emergent interoperabilitya friendly critique of the FInES roadmap Jonathan Cave FInES Cluster meeting 12 October 2012
What is regulation?• 19th century definition of a well-regulated system: one in proper working order• This presupposes intent, design or common understanding, but…• It does not suppose or imply a regulator
Regulatory implications of interoperability• Positive – internalise externalities and coordination problems• Negative – exclude ‘market discipline’ and the variation part of evolution• Ambiguous - benifits in one domain (e.g. security) can be used to justify distortions in another (profit, innovation)• Example – data repositories in the supply chain
Where is this in FInES?• Knowledge spaces: – socioeconomic – from commerce back to economy, evolved meaning of citizenship and shared individual identity – Networked enterprise (the X enterprise) – Enterprise systems• Commonality – the emergence of new ‘animals’ in new ecosystems.
So what?• Enterprise is a characteristic of human interaction, not a noun.• Don’t let the framework define the phenomenology• Regulation is not just context – it comes from somewhere and changes at the same rate as regulated behaviour• This leads us to complexity
Three specific implications• Interoperating systems are complex systems – they self- organise, but in what direction?• Interoperability, like well-regulatedness, is an emergent property – Emergence speaks of the amount of specific information (e.g. about the past) needed to predict (or influence) the future. The more you need to know, the stronger the emergence – Prediction may become imprecise, but without becoming less informative. Approximate predictions should be used for tolerant forms of regulation• Competition and monopoly (utility regulation) itself are extremes; – Interoperability creates many more types of interaction – Some are good, some not – need to look beyond the form to the consequences – This means (stakeholder) engagement or free movement• Commercial pitch – regulatory issues in the cloud