Seite - (000050) - in Knowledge and Networks

40 of overall collaboration should entail some physical face-to-face interaction through work as well as social time. Personal relations matter in the sharing of knowledge s, or more generally, private resources (Hambley, Kline, & O’Neil, 2007 ; Kraut et al., 1999 ; Uzzi, 1999 ). Further, the creation of a space and time for people to learn about each other in the course of collaborating on a project is complex because social learning is far from automatic. Rather, it requires careful planning of the mun- dane—seating arrangements, for example—to avoid the self -segregation during social time that has been documented in apparently “mixed” residential complexes and lunchrooms in schools. 19 The idea here is to take what we know about the value of routinized rhythms of interaction from communities of economic practice in innovative activity (Brown & Duguid, 1991 ), and introduce such routinization in new social relations formed around collaborative project work. 20 Drawing from what we know about path depen- dence and the value of respect for another’s work for future interaction, the sharing of knowledges about people as well as project work positions future social relations constructively. Pragmatically, the agenda produces logistical problems as well as the expense of ensuring participants’ travel to a central place for the portion of proj- ect work requiring physical face-to-face interaction (see Feller, Finnegan, Hayes, & O’Reilly, 2012 , regarding the critical role of stability for open innovation). In this regard, public-private partnerships may be crucial to provide continual support. Envisioning Socially Responsive, Collaborative Knowledge Networks in the New Economy The short-term nature of collaboration and the continual reconfi guration of proac- tively constructed networks ensure a continual meeting ground of diverse actors. The main drawback of network ephemerality from the vantage point of solvers is the potential instability of work. 21 Especially in light of one of the objectives to 19 Lee’s ( 2007 ) provocative account of a neighborhood’s effort to deter Vancouver planners, engi- neers, politicians, and developers from moving ahead with plans for demolition and gentrifi cation is instructive. Organizers of the movement against demolition and gentrifi cation recognized that the actors behind these plans regarded the neighborhood as blight, and did not have any idea or even image of the people living in the neighborhood. Rather than protest, community leaders invited city offi cials and representatives of the new planning movement to their neighborhood for festivals, dinner, and walking tours, paying close attention to mundane details such as seating arrangements at dinner and the like. The face-to-face interaction and development of personal rela- tions culminated in the termination of city plans for demolition and gentrifi cation following what might be described as a concert of orchestrated “situated practices” that emplaced actual faces and livelihoods in the image of the neighborhood. 20 The rhythms of working together and getting to know one another might otherwise be stated in terms of the socialization stage in Nonaka’s conceptualization of knowledge generation (Nonaka, 1994 ; Nonaka & Konno, 1998 ). 21 There also is a drawback of ephemeral networks from the vantage point of economic activity and goals, namely that the complex problem of establishing trust must be continually engaged—a N. Ettlinger