9 November 2012
School of Management, Cranfield University
Exaptation, innovation and modular systems
Pierpaolo Andriani
Euromed Management, Marseille, France
Email: pier2paolo@gmail.com
Giuseppe Carignani
ISIS Malignani, and Department of Electrical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering and
Management, University of Udine, Italy
Emai: giuseppe.carignani@uniud.it
Does innovation need invention?
• Several radical innovation giving rise to new market are based
on technological continuity with pre-existing technologies
Examples:
– Microwave oven
– Music reproduction
– Internal combustion engine tractor
– Printing
• This mechanism differs from Schumpeterian technologytechnology recombination
• What are the implications for innovation, entrepreneurship
and creativity?
Exaptation and the evolution of feathers
Flight feather exapted from
thermal insulation (down) and
decor feathers
http://www.spwickstrom.com/flight/
http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554notes1.html
The “invention” of the microwave oven
From a radar system
To the microwave
industry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
=4h1ESUz2H3E&feature=player_
detailpage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Goodbar
Some classical examples (Dew et al. 2004)
CD ROM
Phonograph and jukebox
Internal combustion engine and tractor
1918 FORDSON MOM
1882 Harrison Machine
Works steam-powered tractor
A very early, hand-built
gasoline powered tractor
From wine press to Gutemberg press
2. WHAT IS IT?
Definition
• “We suggest that such characters, evolved for other
usages (or for no function at all), and later
“coopted” for their current role, be called
exaptations” (Gould and Vrba, 1982).
• “Refers to cases in which an entity was selected for
one trait but eventually ended up carrying out a
related but different function” (Mokyr, 1998).
• "The later exploitation in a new context of an
acquisition originally made in another entirely
(Tattersal, 1998).
Exaptation, adaptation and aptation
Gould and Vrba (1982), “Exaptation – a missing term in the
science of form”, Paleobiology, vol. 8, N. 1, p.5
A Darwinian example
The concept of exaptation was already in the Origin of species!
“The illustration of the swimbladder in fishes is a good one,
because it shows us clearly that an organ originally
constructed with one purpose, namely flotation, may be
converted into one for a wholly different purpose, namely,
respiration.”
(Darwin, 1859, Chapter V – Difficulties on theory, Organs of extreme perfection and complication)
Is it important?
Viewed through time from the beginning to the
attainment of the human condition, each step can be
interpreted as a preadaptation
The Social Conquest of Earth, p.397/5380 (Kindle version)
Is it important?
Exaptation … can be widely documented in the
history of technology
(Mokyr_Natural History and Economic History:_20
Is the term used?
Ngram search (http://books.google.com/ngrams/)
Exaptation in the social sciences
• Psychology (Buss, Haselton et al. 1998)
• Linguistics and origin of languages (Lass 1990; Closs Traugott
2004)
• Anthropology (Brown and Feldman, 2009)
• Economics and history of technology (Mokyr 1991)
• Technology and Complexity theory (Kauffman 2000)
• Management studies (Dew, Sarasvathy et al. 2004; Cattani 2005).
Exaptation and innovation
Source of diversity
• Fundamental mechanism in the expansion of the technosphere (Mokyr
1998; Kauffman 2000)
– Exaptation as source of variations (Cattani 2006; Dew, Read et al. 2008)
– Exp as fundamental source of ‘variation’ in a Campbellian variation-selectionretention (Grandori 2007)
• Heterogeneity as material for exaptation (Jacobs 1969:55)* (Mokyr 2002)
– Artifacts as affordances for exaptation based on interpretative flexibility
(Tuomi 2002:10-12)*
– Effectuation as source of variations in entrepreneurial firms as opposed to
learning in established firms (Dew, Read et al. 2008)
– Slack as source of exaptations (Dew, Read et al. 2008)
– Exaptation as study of branching of niches as opposed to
study of adaptive evolution of lineages (Dew, Read et al.
2008)
Strategy
• Foresight as anticipation of redeployment of preadapted capabilities to
new domain (Cattani 2005)
• exaptation as determinant of competitive advantage (Cattani 2005)
• Exaptation as determinant of disruptive innovation (Levinthal 1998; Dew,
Sarasvathy et al. 2004)
• Effectuation logic theory (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005; Dew, Read et al.
2008)
• Behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm (BTEF) is based on exaptive
strategy (Dew, Read et al. 2008)
Innovation theory
• Specific aspects
– Microprocesses underlying emergence of new technologies (Cattani 2006)
– Technology-push model and exaptation (Geroski 2003:55)*
– exaptation explains fast emergence of radical innovations in presence of little
or no technological change (exaptation as technology-domain different from
tech-tech combination) (Levinthal 1998)*(Adner and Levinthal 2002)*
– Speciation of technologies and emergence of new market niches is based on
exaptation (Levinthal 1998; Adner and Levinthal 2002)* (Cattani 2006)
• General theory of radical Innovation
– Cascades of change activated by unintended effects (i.e. exaptations) (Jacobs
1969:52-53)*
– Exaptive-adaptive theory of technological development (Levinthal 1998)*
(Dew, Sarasvathy et al. 2004)
– Basic mechanisms in innovation cascade – exaptive bootstrapping (Lane 2011)
Entrepreneurship
• Endogenous cause of Knightian uncertainty (Dew, Sarasvathy et al. 2004)
• Technology-domain (exaptation) is different from techn-techn
combination. The former is “a quintessential entrepreneurial activity.”
(Levinthal 1998:220)* (Levinthal 1998)* (Dew, Sarasvathy et al. 2004)
• Exaptive theory of entrepreneurship (BTEF) (Dew, Sarasvathy et al. 2004)
R&D management
• R&D based on ‘performance potential’ rather than ‘performance gap’
(Grandori 2007)
• Evolution of capabilities and strategic advantage (Cattani 2005; Cattani
2006)
• Transformative capacity: active policy of exploration and transfer of
available in-house knowledge over new domains (unshelving approach)
(Garud and Nayyar 19943)* (Cattani 2006)
• Von Hippel’s lead users and innovation communities are known for
innovating via creative transformation of existent technologies (Von Hippel
2005; Von Hippel, De Jong et al. 2010)*
References - A
Adner, R. and D. A. Levinthal (2002). "The emergence of emerging technologies." California Management Review 45(1): 50-66.
Beunza, D. (2007). "In praise of ambiguity: a commentary on exaptation." European Management Review 4: 157-159.
Bonifati, G. (2010). Exaptation, Degeneracy and Innovation. Modena, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia,
Dipartimento di Comunicazione e Economia.
Cattani, G. (2005). "Preadaptation, Firm Heterogeneity, and Technological Performance: A Study on the Evolution of Fiber Optics,
1970-1995." Organization Science 16(6): 563-580.
Cattani, G. (2006). "Technological pre-adaptation, speciation, and emergence of new technologies: how Corning invented and
developed fiber optics." Industrial and Corporate Change 15(2): 285-318.
Dew, N., S. Read, et al. (2008). "Outlines of a behavioral theory of the entrepreneurial firm." Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 66: 37-59.
Dew, N., S. D. Sarasvathy, et al. (2004). "The economic implications of exaptation." Journal of Evolutionary Economics 14(1): 69-84.
Garud, R. and P. R. Nayyar (19943). "Transformative capacity: continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfter."
Strategic Management Journal 15: 365-385.
Geroski, P. (2003). The evolution of new markets. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Grandori, A. (2007). "Discovery in natural selection and knowledge processes: a commentary on ‘an agent-based model of
exaptive processes." European Management Review 4: 153-156.
References - B
.Jacobs (1969). The economies of cities. New York, Random House.
Kauffman, S. (1995). At home in the universe. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, S. (2000). Investigations. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Lane, D. A. (2011). Complexity and Innovation Dynamics. Handbook on the economic complexity of technological change. C.
Antonelli. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Lessig, L. (2003). The future of ideas. New York, Random House.
Levinthal, D. (1998). "The Slow Pace of Rapid Technological Change: Gradualism and Punctuation in Technological Change."
Industrial and Corporate Change 7(2): 217-247.
Mokyr, J. (1998). Neither chance nor necessity: evolutionary models and economic history, Princeton University Press.
Mokyr, J. (2002). The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy. Princeton: NJ, Princeton University Press.
Sarasvathy, S. D. and N. Dew (2005). "New market creation through transformation." J Evol Econ 15: 533-565.
Tuomi, I. (2002). Networks of Innovation: Change and Meaning in the Age of the Internet. Oxford, OUP.
Villani, M., Bonacini, S., Ferrari, D., Serra, R. and Lane, D. (2007). An agent-based model of exaptive processes. European
Management Review, 4(4), 141-151.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: MA, MIT Press.
Von Hippel, E., J. De Jong, et al. (2010). Comparing Business and Household Sector Innovation in Consumer Products: Findings
from a Representative Study in the UK.
Definitional issues
At the heart of the argument there is an analogy
between evolutionary biology and evolutionary
social sciences
Is the analogy well founded?
Definitional concepts
[Purpose]
[Function]
[Behavior]
[Functionality]
[Phenomena]
Behaviour: Complete set of
effects, including all the possible
module’s actions, processes and
operations allowed by its form.
Function: subset of behavior for
which the module was selected
for (re) production
Purpose: set of effects for which
the module was intended by its
maker (designer, manufacturer,
inventor, entrepreneur). This
may or may not coincide with
the use performed by the user.
Functionality: refers to the
generic class of functions
performed by the module.
Phenomena: complete set of
laws onto which behaviours are
based.
The enigma of function
(De Winter, A Pragmatic Account of Functions)
Backward-looking questions (aetiology)
• A first kind of explanation-seeking question we can ask about an artifact, and that
can be answered by one or more functional statements, is a backward-looking
question:
• Why is x there?
• “The function of x is to Φ” means that -ing is the effect for which x was selected.
(Neander 1991)
Forward-looking questions (intentional)
• We can also ask forward-looking questions about artifacts, such as:
• Why will x be (re)produced?
• Why will x be maintained?
• Why will x be integrated in system s?
• “The function of x is to Φ” means that Φ -ing is the effect for which x will be
reproduced.
Function: a difficult concept
In evolutionary biology the
aetiological concept of function is
dominant: “The explaination to
why something exists intimately
rests on how it became what it
is.” (Dosi, 1997).
In the social sciences (and in
technology studies in particular)
there is no consensus.
Intentionality (of the designer,
manufacturer or user) plays a
constitutive role (Krohs and
Kroes, 2009). It is considered a
major differentiator between
biological and social evolutionary
sciences
behavior
Intentional
Function
•
•
•
Aetiologic
Function
Tentative definitions:
Purpose (or intentional function or
‘proper’ function): the set of effects
for which the artifact was intended by
its maker (designer, manufacturer,
inventor, entrepreneur)
Function (aetiological): the subset of
behaviour for which the artifact was
selected for (re) production; the
‘consensus’ definition in evolutionary
biology)
Function: a difficult concept
• This leads to an apparent contradiction between the
aetiological concept necessary to biology and the
intentional one necessary to technology. Indeed
some scholars (e.g. Vermaas and Houkes, 2003)
argue that an aetiological concept of artfacts’
function is untenable and therefore any evolutionary
analogy of technological innovation is doomed from
its very beginning.
Why adoption of aetiological definition of function is
legitimate in technology studies
• Pragmatic choice. No definition can serve all situations.
• Several scholars point out continuity between biological and
social/technological evolution (Silverberg, 1988; Kauffman,
2000; Mokyr; Jacobs, 2000; Arthur, 2010)
• Intentionality is nested and distributed
• Human agency only a factor in general coevolutionary systems
Why is it useful to adopt an aetiological definition of
function in technology studies
• It solves ambiguities in the definition of exaptation
• By distinguishing between functional shift and exaptation, it
counters objection that exaptation is about renaming (old
wine in new bottles)
• It links function to selection by making exaptation dependent
on users’ selection
• It allows to distinguish between exaptations based on
functional shift only and exaptations based on new
functionality discovery
Functional shift and exaptation
Phase 1:
Functional
shift
Artifact
Artifact
A*
A
Artifact
A
Phase 2:
emergence
of selection
pressure
Artifact
A*
Phase 3:
adaptation
Artifact
A*
• Functional shift is
necessary but not
sufficient condition for
exaptation
• Functional shift may
generate an innovation
that is defined by
emergence of selection
pressure
• This condition satisfies
Gould’ and Vrba’s
extensive definition of
exaptation
Fundamental distinction between biological and technological
evolution:
Selection level and exaptation level
Selection
Exaptation
Selection
Selection
Exaptation
Exaptation
Exaptation
Selection
Exaptation Selection
Modular exaptation
Why modularity?
Herbert A. Simon in his
seminal paper ‘ The
Architecture of complexity’
introduces the concept of
‘nearly decomposable
systems’ and argues that
hierarchic systems will
evolve far more quickly than
non-hierarchic systems of
comparable size’.
Evolvability along Simon’s
lines can be an underlying
reason explaining the
emergence of modularity in
natural and artificial
systems as well.
Modular exaptation
• We define modular exaptation any process in which a
subset of the behavior of an artifact (or of a module)
becomes the function for which the artifact is
selected.
Emergence of new market
New
Radical
exaptation
External
exaptation
Microwave oven
CD ROM
Artifact’s
Purpose
Internal
exaptation
Adaptive
innovation
Tractor from engine
Existing
Existing
Modules’
Functions
New
THE DESIGN CYCLE
The synthesis of artificial form
• The synthesis of artificial
form is usually associated
with intentional design:
• Design is ‘the process of
inventing physical things
which display new physical
order, form, in response to
function’ (Alexander, 1964,
page 1);
The synthesis of the form...
• Form follows function, by
design
Design
• Design is ‘the process of
inventing physical things
which display new physical
order, form, in response to
function’ (Alexander, 1964,
page 1);
follows
Form
Function
Giuseppe Carignani – Udine University and Istituto Malignani
The synthesis of the form...
Design
Form
follows Function
Function
Form
follows
Exaptation
Giuseppe Carignani – Udine University and Istituto Malignani
Modular operators
Modular exaptation mechanisms: horizontal transfer
Function
Form
follows
Exaptation
Microwave Oven
Core MO
component
Radar system
…
…
…
Radar System
Magnetron
…
Microwave
Oven
Magnetron modular exaptation
Design
Form
Modular exaptation
follows Function
Exaptation
a new function emerges: the
system adds a new (unsuspected
function) to the existing ones
Modular evolution follows
Exaptation: unknown
Modularization of artifact enables
modular operators action
Notice how adaptive change occurs
at the modular level and exaptive
processes at the artifact level
Modular operators
1. Addition, subtraction of a new
module
2. Substitution or improvement of an
existing module
3. Modular splitting and modular fusion
4. Combination of two modular systems
are usually adaptive (form-followsfunction ...
but generate new forms and hence
activate exaptation branch (functionfollows-form)
Design
Form
follows Function
Exaptation enabled by modularity operators:
1: improvement of a component
Exaptation
Exaptation at the artifact level
Examples:
• Minicomputers invading
mainframe market space
A modular artifact
• PC invading mainframe and
minicomputer market space
improving performance of existing module (adaptation)
may lead to
Design
Form
follows Function
Modular exaptation mechanisms
2: addition/subtraction of components
Exaptation
Purposeful addition of a modular
component to an existing modular
products (camera to mobile phones)
leads to new adaptive functions but also
to exapted ones. of mobile phones based
on
A modular artifact
Addition of camera to mobile phones was
conceived as an additive service (take
photos and send them instantly). But it has
opened the communication-image
processing integration trajectory. Barcode
scanning to access information about
products is an exapted function
Design
Form
follows Function
Exaptation
Modular exaptation mechanisms:
3: recombination of two modular systems
Modular exaptation mechanisms:
Babbage’s
recombination
diffferential and
analytical engine
Exaptational
trajectory
http://www.littleredshopmuseum.org/images/gallery/Re
dShopHandLoom4.jpg
Traditional loom
Adaptational
trajectory
+
Punched card
Jacquard loom
http://www03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/vintage/images/4506
VV4006.jpg
http://www.duke.edu/web/isis/gessler/collections/jac
quard-punch-card.jpg
IBM punched card 405
machine
EXAPTATION, NETWORKS AND
INNOVATION
A short case of exaptation in
collapsed clusters
The Airship industry in the UK
(With David Weir)
Our example
• The UK Airship industry to early 1930’s…COLLAPSE
• The UK aviation industry from early 1930’s… Exaptive
regeneration
R100 and R101
• Two teams were used: one, under direction of the
Government Air Ministry would build R101 (hence the
nickname "the Socialist Airship"),
• the other by a private company, Vickers, building R100(the
"Capitalist Airship") under contract for a fixed price.
• Among Vickers' engineers were the designer Barnes Wallis
later famous for the bouncing bomb and, as Chief Calculator
(ie, Stress Engineer), Nevil Shute Norway better known as the
novelist Nevil Shute.
R101
• R101 was the result of a British
government initiative to develop
airships. In 1924, the Imperial
Airways Scheme was proposed as
a way to carry 200 troops or five
fighter aircraft. This was expected
to require an airship of 8 million
cubic feet (230,000 m³) – well
beyond current designs. As a
result, the two prototype airships
of 5 million cubic feet (140,000
m³) were authorized; two to
exploit competition and develop
new ideas.
R100 en route to Canada
The burnt out skeleton of R101
After the R101 disaster
• the Air Ministry ordered the R100 grounded. She was deflated
and hung up in her shed for a year whilst three options were
considered:
• a complete refit of R100 and continuation of tests for the
eventual construction of a proposed R102
• static testing of R100 and retention of about 300 staff to keep
the programme ticking over; or
• retention of staff and the scrapping of the airship.
• In November 1931, it was decided to sell R100for scrap and
the entire framework of the ship was flattened by machinery
and sold for less than £600.
We concentrate on three central airship technologies
• Geodetic structure
• Streamlining and Laminar airflow
•
Lightweight Materials
• But other technologies were important
• EG in Engine design, joint-construction, textile, wet-proofing,
steering surfaces and welding techniques……
Two principal players
Barnes Wallis and Nevil Shute Norway
Tallboy and Grand Slam Bombs
Interested in exaptation?
• Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/194986137257789/
• European Conference on Complex Systems, Brussels, 3-7 September 2012
Satellite meeting, 5-6 September 2012
The dynamics of innovation: micro-diversity, macro-diversity and
exaptation in complex socio-technical systems
http://www.exaptation.eu/
Organizers: Pierpaolo Andriani, Pier-Paolo Saviotti
• EGOS 2013, Montreal, Canada, July 4–6, 2013
Subtheme: The Role of Exaptation in Unravelling the Dynamics of
Creativity, Innovation and New Product-Market Creation
Organisers: Pierpaolo Andriani, Gino Cattani
http://www.egosnet.org/jart/prj3/egos/main.jart?rel=de&reserve-mode=active&contentid=1334581167609&subtheme_id=1319359704400
• ...thank you for your attention…
2001 a space odyssey: this is not a bone…
Modular exaptation…