Industrial active players
An active industrial process which involved many human resource are not belong to government or big company only, there are other active players that contribute the dynamic parts of industrial process.
Those are organizations such as universities, venture capital, consulting engineering firms, consumer advocacy groups, NGOs, service operators, and so forth. In fact, the list of societal actors which engage directly in knowledge production or exploitation is an empirical question, and as such an open question.
The first point is thus about the necessity of considering active and diverse actors as both enabling and sometimes constraining the capability of an economy to engage in innovating, learning, and experimenting. In particular, this perspective stresses two areas for further research. One area is why the firms experiment with the development of knowledge, opportunities, and organizational forms, to survive and succeed in a changing environment.
Another area is how much novelty, destruction, and renewal of organizational forms takes place, when seen through the lenses of particular technologies, time periods, and type of response. Questions include:
. How and why do firms, universities, and governments sometimes substitute for each other, in terms of developing new scientific and technical knowledge for business contexts?
. Within the history of particular actors, what causes points of radical destruction like bankruptcy as well as processes of incremental renewal like gradual renewal of product markets?
. Under what conditions do different types of organization drive such transformatory economic change through internal processes and under what conditions are they more reactive to external stimuli?
. ‘How much’ new and old are involved when actors choose to reorient their strategies? Do the degrees of novelty, destruction, and renewal differ, when they decide to do so through endogenously driven processes, as compared to when, they find themselves ‘forced’ to do so to survive?
The second point stresses that uncertainty is integral to innovating, learning, and experimenting. Uncertainty as opposed to risk was defined by Frank Knight, and this is a concept relevant for modern literature, as exemplified in the discussions by Loasby. The philosopher of science Campbell explains that uncertainty can be understood if the further development of knowledge is viewed as blind generation.
Blind generation means that although actors generate alternatives to fit their interpretations of environmental conditions, they cannot know in advance which alternatives will turn out to be well adapted. As such, actors generate novelty in the dark, or with only an approximate understanding of selection pressures. This type of thinking has been developed in various ways.