After attending a meeting with Pelindo yesterday, I attended a seminar hosted by FEB UI as part of a series themed “Conducting Impactful Business Research on an International Scale: Recent Trends, Methods, and Challenges.” Today’s session featured Agung Trisetyarso and Fithra Faisal Hariadi discussing “Research Methods: Quantum Approach to Coopetition Analysis and Disruptive Innovation.” This emerging approach leverages quantum states and mathematical formalisms like Dirac notation to model complex systems in social and economic research. By addressing uncertainty, interdependence, and multidimensional data, it opens pathways to innovative analyses of decision-making, preference patterns, and network dynamics.
Quantum methods uniquely represent probabilities through superposition (coexistence of multiple states) and entanglement (interdependencies between variables). In economics, they can model ambiguous preferences and market uncertainties, while in social sciences, they tackle paradoxical decision-making scenarios where traditional logic falls short. Additionally, entanglement provides insights into deep interdependencies, such as the impact of social ties or market ecosystems. The high-dimensional nature of quantum states allows for representing multifaceted variables, such as consumer preferences, and modeling dynamic changes over time—useful for exploring cultural shifts, policy impacts, or market evolution.
I found the discussion particularly compelling regarding its application to handling volatilities and uncertainties in economic systems and complexity-based strategies. The ability to accommodate multiple states and interdependent variables makes this approach well-suited to ecosystem-based strategies, addressing ambiguous preferences and paradoxical decision-making. I plan to delve deeper into these methods to explore their potential in advancing strategic insights.
Paper dari Jacobides, Cennamo, dan Gawer (2018) memaparkan lebih lanjut peran penting modularitas dalam ekosistem. Sebagai implikasinya, diperlukan tata kelola yang seimbang untuk memastikan ekosistem tetap sehat dan berkembang, sehingga dapat mendukung keberlangsungan bisnis dari entitas-entitas di dalamnya.
Koordinasi Ekosistem
Modularitas merupakan elemen krusial dalam mendukung pertumbuhan ekosistem. Modularitas bukanlah faktor eksternal (eksogen), melainkan hasil dari peran aktif pemegang platform dalam membentuk struktur dan hubungan antar entitas di dalam ekosistem. Saat modularitas disusun, ekosistem dapat terbentuk meskipun awalnya tidak dirancang secara eksplisit, seperti yang terjadi pada ekosistem aplikasi iPhone versi awal. Meskipun awalnya dirancang sebagai sistem tertutup (walled garden), ekosistem iPhone berkembang dengan masuknya aplikasi pihak ketiga tanpa otorisasi formal, menciptakan ekosistem yang lahir secara tidak sengaja (accidental ecosystem).
Kolaborasi Ekosistem
Dinamika kolaborasi dalam ekosistem sangat bergantung pada jenis komplementor yang terlibat, yang menghasilkan variasi dalam perilaku dan struktur pengelolaan. Pola perilaku di sektor yang lebih baru cenderung berbeda dibandingkan dengan sektor yang sudah mapan. Semakin dinamis interaksi dalam ekosistem, semakin besar potensi keberhasilan dalam mengenali peluang dan mengadopsi pendekatan yang tepat untuk keberlangsungan ekosistem. Dalam konteks persaingan, kemudahan dalam mengakses aset serta relasi antar komponen menjadi penentu utama dalam menarik aktor baru atau mendorong perpindahan aktor antar ekosistem. Mekanisme ini memperkuat dinamika lintas ekosistem yang dapat memengaruhi kesuksesan kolaborasi.
Penciptaan Nilai
Penciptaan nilai dalam ekosistem dapat dianalisis melalui interaksi antara berbagai komplementor yang terlibat. Interaksi ini tidak hanya memberikan nilai tambah bagi pelanggan, tetapi juga menciptakan tantangan untuk mempertahankan anggota ekosistem, terutama jika ada kompetitor yang menawarkan daya tarik lebih besar. Semakin modular sebuah ekosistem, semakin besar upaya yang harus dilakukan oleh pusat ekosistem untuk menarik anggota baru. Namun, ketika ekosistem mencapai dominasi tertentu, proses penambahan anggota akan terjadi secara alami tanpa banyak intervensi.
Tata Kelola Ekosistem
Tata kelola dalam ekosistem bergantung pada aturan yang mengatur keterlibatan aktor dalam ekosistem, baik dalam bentuk aturan tertulis maupun aturan informal yang diakui secara de facto. Sifat dari antarmuka dan standar dalam ekosistem juga menentukan sejauh mana aktor dapat berpartisipasi secara efektif. Beberapa ekosistem memiliki tata kelola yang ketat dan didokumentasikan, sementara yang lain lebih bergantung pada aturan yang tidak terformalisasi namun tetap diakui oleh para aktor dalam ekosistem tersebut. Keberhasilan tata kelola ini sangat penting untuk memastikan keseimbangan antara inovasi, kolaborasi, dan persaingan dalam ekosistem.
Exploring the ideas about adaptation and emergence as a part of ecosystem (i.e. complex adaptive system — CAS) development, I think it is more exciting when we see it through the combined lenses of CAS, Schumpeter, Kuhn, Foucault, and Lyotard. Each of these perspectives explores how change does not just happen bit by bit, but instead in bold and disruptive leaps, as transformations that completely alter the playing field, whether we’re talking about economies, sciences, societies, or even our basic understanding of the world.
CAS implies that change is a matter of adaptive cycles — cycles of growth, accumulation, collapse, and renewal. An ecosystem could grow, accumulates the resources until hitting a limit. Then its whole structure becomes unsustainable, collapses, and reboots in a new way — it reorganises itself with fresh relationships and opportunities. This cycle is anything but smooth; it’s like a forest fire clearing the way for new growth, and it’s essential for resilience and long-term adaptability. This model resonates closely with Schumpeter’s idea of creative destruction in economies. Schumpeter saw capitalism as a system where innovation doesn’t build up neatly on top of the old but bulldozes it — new technologies, businesses, and products disrupt markets, toppling established companies and paving the way for the next wave of growth. For Schumpeter, entrepreneurs drive this cycle, constantly reinventing the economy and shifting the landscape in unexpected ways.
Thomas Kuhn brought a similar idea into science with his concept of paradigm shifts. In Kuhn’s view, science isn’t a smooth, cumulative process of adding one discovery to the next. Instead, it moves forward in fits and starts. Scientists work within a “paradigm” — a shared framework for understanding the world — until enough anomalies build up that the whole system starts to feel shaky. At that point, someone comes along with a radically new idea that doesn’t just tweak the existing framework but replaces it. Kuhn’s paradigm shift is a profound reimagining of the rules, kind of like Schumpeter’s creative destruction but applied to the way we think and know. It’s as if science periodically wipes the slate clean and rebuilds itself from a fresh perspective.
As a Gen-X, I must also mention Michel Foucault. Foucault offered a more historical spin on these ideas with his concept of epistemes. Foucault believed that every era has its own underlying structure of knowledge, shaping how people perceive and think about the world. These epistemes don’t evolve smoothly; they’re punctuated by abrupt shifts where the entire basis of understanding changes. Just like in a Kuhnian paradigm shift, when a new episteme takes over, it fundamentally changes what questions are even worth asking, as well as who holds power in the discourse. In Foucault’s view, knowledge isn’t just a collection of facts piling up—it’s tied to shifts in power and perspective, with each era replacing the last in a way that’s not fully compatible with what came before.
Then there’s Jean-François Lyotard, who takes the idea a step further by challenging the very idea of cumulative “progress” altogether. As a postmodernist, Lyotard argued that the grand narratives that used to make sense of history, science, and knowledge are breaking down. Instead of one single, upward trajectory, we’re left with multiple, fragmented stories that don’t fit neatly together. Knowledge, for Lyotard, is no longer a matter of moving toward some ultimate truth but an evolving patchwork of perspectives. This rejection of a single narrative echoes Schumpeter’s and Kuhn’s visions of disruption and replacement over seamless continuity. Lyotard’s work suggests that, in knowledge and culture alike, stability is always provisional, subject to the next seismic shift in understanding.
Let’s imagine they can talk together
So when we look at all these thinkers together, a fascinating picture emerges. In CAS, Schumpeter’s economics, Kuhn’s science, Foucault’s history, and Lyotard’s philosophy, progress is not about slowly stacking up ideas or wealth. Instead, it’s about cycles of buildup, breakdown, and renewal — each shift leaving behind remnants of the old and bringing forth something fundamentally new. This kind of progress isn’t just unpredictable; it’s fueled by disruption, tension, and revolution. These thinkers collectively remind us that the most transformative changes come from breaking with the past, not from adding to it. Progress, in this view, is a story of radical leaps, creative destruction, paradigm shifts, and fresh starts—where each new phase is a bold departure from what came before.
Penceritaan, narasi, atau storytelling merupakan cara alami dan mendasar untuk memahami dan menjelaskan dunia. Sebagai model acuan mental, cerita membentuk struktur dasar bagaimana manusia menyusun, mengaitkan, dan mengingat informasi. Dalam setiap cerita, terdapat alur, tokoh, dan konteks yang memberikan kerangka terstruktur, memungkinkan otak manusia mengolah informasi kompleks menjadi pola yang lebih mudah dipahami. Cerita mampu mentransformasikan ide-ide abstrak menjadi sesuatu yang konkret, menciptakan hubungan emosional dan kognitif antara pendengar atau pembaca dengan gagasan yang disampaikan.
Dalam masyarakat, cerita berfungsi sebagai media utama untuk menyampaikan wawasan budaya, tradisi, dan nilai-nilai. Sebagai sarana kolektif, cerita membantu menjaga kesinambungan identitas budaya, mengajarkan norma-norma sosial, dan memperkuat rasa kebersamaan. Wawasan budaya yang tersampaikan melalui cerita tidak hanya memperkaya pemahaman individu tetapi juga memperkuat ikatan dalam komunitas, menciptakan kesadaran kolektif yang lebih mendalam.
Di tingkat personal, cerita memiliki hubungan langsung dengan model mental seseorang. Manusia lebih mudah mengingat dan memahami konsep ketika informasi disajikan dalam bentuk narasi yang terstruktur. Keterkaitan logis dan emosional dalam cerita memungkinkan individu memproses kondisi rumit dengan lebih baik. Ketika elemen-elemen cerita dipadukan dengan emosi, gambar mental, dan konteks relevan, ini membantu membentuk konsep yang lebih kokoh dalam memori jangka panjang.
Cerita dimanfaatkan secara luas dalam berbagai bidang untuk mencapai tujuan tertentu. Dalam komunitas, cerita digunakan untuk menyebarkan pengetahuan secara efektif, baik dalam bentuk tradisional seperti folklore maupun melalui media modern. Di ranah intelektual, cerita menjadi alat untuk menghimpun dan melembagakan pengetahuan sebagai bagian dari intellectual capital (IC). Dengan menstrukturkan pengetahuan dalam bentuk narasi, cerita membantu organisasi atau komunitas menciptakan aset pengetahuan yang dapat diwariskan dan diakses lintas generasi. Dalam pendidikan, cerita memainkan peran penting dalam meningkatkan efektivitas pembelajaran. Melalui cerita, siswa dapat lebih mudah memahami materi pelajaran, mengaitkannya dengan pengalaman pribadi, dan membangun pemahaman yang lebih mendalam.
Menariknya, cerita tidak selalu harus diingat dalam detailnya. Dalam banyak kasus, elemen kunci dari cerita, yang terekam sebagai priming memory, dapat memicu akses ke memori sadar di saat-saat tertentu. Misalnya, sebuah cerita tentang keberanian dapat memunculkan pola pemikiran atau tindakan tertentu saat seseorang menghadapi situasi sulit. Dengan demikian, cerita tidak hanya berfungsi sebagai media pengajaran tetapi juga sebagai pemandu bawah sadar yang membentuk cara seseorang bertindak dan bereaksi dalam kehidupan sehari-hari.
Beberapa buku yang menggunakan pendekatan storytelling untuk menyampaikan wawasan mendalam antara lain:
Kim juga memaparkan transformasi pada perusahaan di tengah disrupsi digital, terutama dengan memanfaatkan kekuatan pengelolaan data.
Bahkan, kitab suci tidak disusun dalam bentuk pasal-pasal, melainkan melalui rangkaian cerita yang sarat makna, yang mampu memotivasi dan membimbing manusia. Perubahan dalam masyarakat lebih mungkin terjadi melalui wacana yang disampaikan dalam bentuk cerita, narasi historis, dan simbol-simbol, daripada melalui proposisi logis semata.
I got this books a couple years ago: Architecting the Digital Transformation, edited by Zimmermann, Schmidt, and Jain. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-49640-1. It is interesting to find insights on digital transformation at an enterprise scale with emphasis on architecture-driven agility, the evolution of enterprise architecture roles, and the systemic cultural and organisational shifts necessary to support sustainable, adaptive transformation. Digital transformation has emerged as a critical undertaking for large organisations striving to remain competitive amidst rapid technological and societal change. Success at enterprise scale requires more than the adoption of new technologies — it demands a reimagining of business architecture, organisational culture, and governance mechanisms.
This book offers a research-based perspective on navigating this complexity. A key concept introduced is perpetual evolution—a modular and flexible architectural model that enables continuous innovation. Systems are designed so that components can be independently upgraded or replaced, allowing quick integration of new technologies while avoiding the constraints of monolithic infrastructure.
Complementing this architectural agility is the bimodal IT strategy, which combines a stable core system with a more experimental, agile layer. This setup enables organisations to innovate rapidly without compromising operational stability, bridging legacy systems with modern digital initiatives.
A recurring theme is the alignment between agile teams and enterprise architects. These roles have traditionally been at odds—agile valuing speed and adaptability, while architecture focuses on structure and governance. However, case studies in the book show that collaboration between the two improves both solution integrity and delivery speed. Architects are repositioned not as distant planners, but as facilitators embedded within teams.
To reinforce architectural discipline without imposing rigid control, the authors introduce lightweight governance and social incentives. The Architecture Belt, for example, is a gamified ranking system that encourages adherence to architectural principles in a positive, participatory way. This proves especially effective in large-scale agile environments where consistency must coexist with autonomy.
Cultural change is equally vital. Organisations must build digital dexterity—a culture of fast learning, experimentation, and team autonomy. Successful transformation often comes from empowered cross-functional teams that are free to explore, prototype, and iterate. In this paradigm, enterprise architects become active contributors to the digital ecosystem, supporting communities, sharing knowledge, and offering hands-on technical guidance.
The book also examines the shift in Enterprise Architecture Management (EAM). Traditional, centralised models are no longer compatible with agile and DevOps practices. Instead, Agile EAM is iterative, collaborative, and closely integrated with delivery teams, enabling organisations to respond more effectively to technological and market changes.
Finally, the authors present Service-Dominant Design (SDD) as a practical framework for creating digital services through co-creation. Rather than building solutions in isolation, SDD emphasises contextual understanding, stakeholder collaboration, and iterative development—ensuring outcomes that are both technically sound and meaningfully relevant.
In essence, the role of enterprise architecture is being redefined. The most effective digital transformations are those where architects take a hands-on role in shaping platforms, facilitating cross-team collaboration, and ensuring coherence across the digital ecosystem. By embracing both structure and agility, architecture becomes a living framework that evolves in step with the business.
And now, since the end is near :), I want to write a bit about the last Wagner’s operas: Der Ring des Nibelungen and Parsifal. Surely, we understand that in Der Ring, Wagner critiques the gods and rulers who perpetuate cycles of oppression and greed, reflecting his anarchist ideals; while in Parsifal, the knights’ spiritual decay mirrors the moral failure of religious and political institutions, tying to Wagner’s later disillusionment with worldly systems of power. But there are also ethical and philosophical relationships between Der Ring and Parsifal that charts Wagner’s evolution from anarchist-revolutionary to Schopenhauerian-mystic.
We might think that Der Ring and Parsifal are polar opposites in Wagner’s moral universe. The Ring is a story of power, will, and desire, where the ethical conflict revolves around the corrupting nature of power (embodied by the ring itself) and the human compulsion to control nature and fate. Alberich’s Promethean spirit of control and domination, and Wotan’s pursuit of divine order complicated by his own law and ambition, leading to a cycle of betrayal and ruin. On the other hand, Parsifal represents a spiritual counterpoint. Its mysticism emphasises grace, compassion, and redemptive purity. While Der Ring charts a descent into chaos through greed and power-lust, Parsifal seeks salvation through self-abnegation and the renunciation of worldly desire. Parsifal as the “the fool” achieves wisdom through innocence, not knowledge or power. This evolution actually resulted from Wagner’s discovery of Schopenhauer’s doctrine that true liberation comes not through the assertion of will, but through its negation.
Wagner’s anarchist phase (influenced by figures like Bakunin and the revolutionary spirit of 1848) infused his early concept of the Ring with ideas of liberation from tyranny and critique of power. Wotan is, in a sense, the ultimate “failed anarchist” — his efforts to create order (through laws and contracts) lead to his own entrapment, mirroring the anarchist critique of the state as a mechanism that inevitably becomes self-perpetuating. Wotan’s despair reflects Wagner’s recognition of the cyclical nature of power and the impossibility of genuine freedom within systems of control.
However, after Wagner’s discovery of Schopenhauer, his concept of ethical heroism shifted. Schopenhauer’s pessimism argued that life is suffering, driven by blind will, and the only escape is through the negation of that will. This had profound consequences for Wagner’s art. The Ring concludes not with liberation (as early anarchist Wagner might have imagined) but with Götterdämmerung — a total collapse of the system, not a revolution but an apocalypse. In Parsifal, however, Wagner envisions a more Schopenhauerian “redemption through compassion.” Amfortas’s suffering is finally healed not through heroic deeds, but through Mitleid (compassion) — a key Schopenhauerian virtue. This shift from heroic rebellion (Ring) to quiet renunciation (Parsifal) mirrors Wagner’s philosophical evolution.
The anarchism of Wotan’s rebellion gives way to the Schopenhauerian submission of Parsifal. Where once Wagner celebrated the Sturm und Drang (storm and stress) of the world, by the time of Parsifal, he embraced an otherworldly quietude.
Now about the theme of innocence. The figure of the innocent hero reoccurs across Siegfried, Parsifal, and even Lohengrin. Siegfried, as the wild child raised by Mime, embodies natural, untamed innocence. He is fearless, unburdened by history, and initially untainted by the corrupting influence of power or love. However, Siegfried’s innocence does not lead to wisdom but to his destruction. His ignorance of deception (betrayal by Hagen and even Brünnhilde’s eventual disillusionment) seals his tragic fate. Parsifal, by contrast, follows an explicitly spiritual and redemptive arc. Described as der reine Tor (the pure fool), Parsifal’s innocence allows him to overcome the forces of desire and temptation. It is a form of “higher innocence” — a purity that remains even after worldly trials. Unlike Siegfried, who succumbs to deceit, Parsifal achieves higher wisdom precisely because of his innocence. This innocence allows him to perceive the hidden suffering of Amfortas and ultimately to heal the King and restore the Grail. Wagner seems to suggest that innocence, when preserved as a form of higher insight (as in Parsifal), allows for salvation; while innocence that remains mere ignorance (as with Siegfried) or innocence that succumbs to doubt (as with Elsa) leads only to tragedy.
Lapalme has discussed “Three Schools of Thought on Enterprise Architecture” at IT Professional in 2012. Korhonen and Halén explored more on Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation.
Schools of Though on EA:
The Enterprise IT Architecting (EITA) school views enterprise architecture as “the glue between business and IT”. Focusing on enterprise IT assets, it aims at business-IT alignment, operational efficiency and IT cost reduction. It is based on the tenet that IT planning is a rational, deterministic and economic process. EA is perceived as the practice for planning and designing the architecture.
The Enterprise Integrating (EI) school views enterprise architecture as the link between strategy and execution. EA addresses all facets of the enterprise in order to coherently execute the strategy. The environment is seen both as a generator of forces that the enterprise is subject to and as something that can be managed. EA is utilized to enhance understanding and collaboration throughout the business.
The Enterprise Ecological Adaptation (EEA) school views EA as the means for organizational innovation and sustainability. The enterprise and its environment are seen as coevolving: the enterprise and its relationship to the environment can be systemically designed so that the organization is “conducive to ecological learning, environmental influencing and coherent strategy execution.” EA fosters sense making and facilitates transformation in the organization.
Level or Enterprise Architecture
Technical Architecture (AT) has an operational focus on reliability and present day asset utilization and is geared to present-day value realization. This is the realm of traditional IT architecture, information systems design and development, enterprise integration and solution architecture work. AT also addresses architectural work practices and quality standards, e.g. architectural support of implementation projects, development guidelines, and change management practices. In terms of organizational structure, AT would pertain to the technical level of organization, where the products are produced or services are provided.
Socio-Technical Architecture (AS) plays an important role as the link between strategy and execution. The business strategy is translated to a coherent design of work and the organization so that enterprise strategy may be executed utilizing all its facets, including IT. AS is about creating enterprise flexibility and capability to change rather than operational optimization: the focus on reliability is balanced with focus on validity in anticipation of changes, whose exact nature cannot be accurately predicted. AS would pertain to the managerial level of organization, where the business strategy is translated to the design of the organization.
Ecosystemic Architecture (AE) is an embedded capability that not only addresses the initial design and building of a robust system but also the successive designs and continual renewal of a resilient system. The architecture must allow for co-evolution with its business ecosystem, industry, markets, and the larger society. AE would pertain to the institutional level of organization, where the organization relates to its business ecosystem, industry, markets, and the larger society.
Adaptation and Maladaptation
Source: Korhonen J.J., Halén M. 2017. Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation. IEEE 19th Conference on Business Informatics. DOI 10.1109/CBI.2017.45
Scholl, Calinescu, Farmer (2021) illustrated how ecological tools can be used to analyse financial markets. Studying markets as complex ecosystems rather than perfectly efficient machines can help regulators guard against damaging market volatility. And they show that changes to the wealth invested via different strategies within a market ecology can help predict market malfunctions like mispricings, bubbles, and crashes.
They model different investor strategies – including non-professional investors, trend followers, and value investors – as different players within a market ecology. They find that:
Just as the status and health of biological ecosystems depend on the species present and their populations, the status and health of market ecosystems depend on market strategies and the wealth invested in them.
Understanding the impact of, and interactions between, different investor species can help predict market malfunctions, just as understanding the impact and interactions of different biological species can help predict ecosystem instability or collapse.
Similar to how animal populations within ecosystems can fluctuate indefinitely, market prices can stray very far from equilibrium and can also fluctuate indefinitely.
Reference:
Scholl MP, Calinescu A, Farmer JD (2021), How Market Ecology Explains Market Malfunction, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2021 118 (26) e2015574118. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2015574118
Arthur WB (2021) wrote a paper comparing conventional vs complexity economics.
Conventional neoclassical economics assumes:
Perfect rationality. It assumes agents each solve a well-defined problem using perfectly rational logic to optimize their behaviour.
Representative agents. It assumes, typically, that agents are the same as each other — they are ‘representative’ — and fall into one or a small number (or distribution) of representative types.
Common knowledge. It assumes all agents have exact knowledge of these agent types, that other agents are perfectly rational and that they too share this common knowledge.
Equilibrium. It assumes that the aggregate outcome is consistent with agent behaviour — it gives no incentive for agents to change their actions.
But over the past 120 years, economists such as Thorstein Veblen, Joseph Schumpeter, Friedrich Hayek, Joan Robinson, etc have objected to the equilibrium framework, each for their own reasons. All have thought a different economics was needed.
It was with this background in 1987 that the Santa Fe Institute convened a conference to bring together ten economic theorists and ten physical theorists to explore the economy as an evolving complex system.
Complexity economics sees the economy as not necessarily in equilibrium, its decision makers (or agents) as not superrational, the problems they face as not necessarily well-defined and the economy not as a perfectly humming machine but as an ever-changing ecology of beliefs, organizing principles and behaviours.
Complexity economics assumes that agents differ, that they have imperfect information about other agents and must, therefore, try to make sense of the situation they face. Agents explore, react and constantly change their actions and strategies in response to the outcome they mutually create. The resulting outcome may not be in equilibrium and may display patterns and emergent phenomena not visible to equilibrium analysis. The economy becomes something not given and existing but constantly forming from a developing set of actions, strategies and beliefs — something not mechanistic, static, timeless and perfect but organic, always creating itself, alive and full of messy vitality.
Difference between Neoclassical and Complexity Economics
In a complex system, the actions taken by a player are channelled via a network of connections. Within the economy, networks arise in many ways, such as trading, information transmission, social influence or lending and borrowing. Several aspects of networks are interesting: how their structure of interaction or topology makes a difference; how markets self-organize within them; how risk is transmitted; how events propagate; how they influence power structures.
The topology of a network matters as to whether connectedness enhances its stability or not. Its density of connections matters, too. When a transmissible event happens somewhere in a sparsely connected network, the change will fairly soon die out for lack of onward transmission; if it happens in a densely connected network, the event will spread and continue to spread for long periods. So, if a network were to slowly increase in its degree of connection, the system will go from few, if any, consequences to many, even to consequences that do not die out. It will undergo a phase change. This property is a familiar hallmark of complexity.
