In contrast, the Internet could pioneer a significantly different vision of work and society. That vision is rooted in, and hence naturally tends to propagate, a form of organization embodying a more decentralized responsibility and power structure. One way of grasping how the Internet introduces new possibilities is by comparing it with a conceptually similar but technically different electronic network that is now vanishing: electronic data interchange. EDI took a proprietary approach to connect enterprises, primarily supply networks in manufacturing and finance, in order to improve coordination. Pushed forward in the 1970s and 1980s, these exclusive systems were incompatible between vendors, and tended to be expensive and inflexible. Today, in an amazingly short time, the Internet has eclipsed most proprietary EDI systems. Internet technology, initially developed through public sector initiatives, provides free and open access to a valuable asset, a common standard.
A powerful economic imperative is unleashed by the Internet’s technology: the increasing returns to scale of both networks and a universal, open set of standards. Collaboration not isolation, extension not restriction – those are the watchwords of the Internet. Indeed, one need only consider the rather sudden enthusiasm with which usually irreconcilable competitors work together to ensure that the Internet becomes a seamless, open space for commerce.
National governments and international organisations from the OECD to the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) are striving to make sure that the Internet becomes a widely shared and level playing field free from obstacles to electronic commerce, e-mail, and the open flow of information.
Sustaining and extending such a radically different culture will take time, and could even fail. True decentralization of decision-making and coordination that goes beyond telework just to save office space and reduce commuting will require individuals to take responsibility throughout the day, from the moment they choose (as producer/consumers) their personally unique breakfast cereal mix to the innovation they dream up (as worker/entrepreneur) in co-operation with a customer that afternoon. This is a daunting challenge. People are naturally resistant to giving up familiar strategies for achieving economic and social success, managing risk, and assuring continuity. Although it may at times only be a question of perception, of how someone looks at change – ‘‘is it a threat or an opportunity?’’ – a new paradigm can be very disruptive. The demands of networked ‘‘dynamic reciprocity’’ go well beyond the roles people are trained to perform and the ways of learning that have been fostered by schools, offices and most homes. For all the potential of the Internet paradigm, there are many constraints, not least of which is the powerful tendency to reimpose traditional methods by simply grafting the old patterns onto the new. These counter-currents can be seen in all areas, from the private firm or public agency that merely uses the Internet to de-layer operations without changing the organizational culture, to misconceived government policy initiatives that impose industrial-era solutions on knowledge economy problems.
“The New Society scenario depends, in large measure, on leadership from the public sector in reaping many of the gains from technological development and diffusion. Using public procurement across the full range of government services in conjunction with active support for R&D spurs innovation and the wide diffusion of technologies that serve collectively determined goals. Improving the quality of life and taking steps towards the establishment of an ecologically sustainable society are at the forefront of the technological agenda.”