Physical resource governance

This page is about governance for physical resources, i.e. decisions and rules about access, their use, their valuation, transactions.

In the NRP-CAS, physical resources are utilized in processes as consumables or usables.

NOTE: This page was started by Tibi and Lynn when they collaborated on the resource management features of the NRP-CAS.

Resource Access UML Model

Philosophy

Resources are things that agents can create, use, consume, destroy, and transact (share, transfer, exchange). The fundamental problem that we are trying to solve here is to optimize the flow of resources into processes of an OVN. The idea is to make the OVN effective and efficient in performing its economic activities, in reaching its socioeconomic goals, or to fulfill its socioeconomic purpose.

How do we optimize the flow of resources in a traditional organizational setting?

The following can be understood through the lens of Ronals Coase's transactional cost theory: an organization exists to reduce transaction costs for the utilization of resources in economic processes.

In terms of acquisition/access, resources are purchased on the market (supply chain), through exchange processes. Most resources utilized within a traditional firm are legally owned by the firm, which eliminates the need to negotiate use rights and reduce risks associated with the use (reduce transaction costs for production processes). A small number of resources that are non-frequently used and/or have very high cost of ownership are lent, borrowed or shared with partner organizations. In terms of allocation or management, firms put in place a resource management system, which prescribes access rules and procedures based on credentials, justification of needs and priorities, etc. Managers oversee the utilization of resources within the constraints of these rules, in order to insure an optimal (effective and parsimonious) allocation. We need to add that traditional organizations operate largely in a regime of scarcity, their pools of resources are finite (number of employees, available budget, capacity, ...).

In terms of power and influence, vital resources are used as leverage, using mechanisms that rely on private property. In other words, the ownership of vital resources confers power to the owners, is an instrument of influence and control. This the basis of the proverbial class division in capitalism: owners and workers. Ownership in traditional settings is rationalized as a mechanism to protect one's fruit of creativity and labour, but in terms of organizational efficiency ownership might become detrimental, when the owner, which has veto power over owned assets, doesn't make good allocation decisions. Traditional organizations operate with a finite pool of resources (space, equipment, funding), which puts them into a regime of scarcity, which generates stringent allocation requirements. In other words, the capacity of firms (of production for example) is limited to their available resources.

In terms of acquisition (of resources), OVNs build on the so-called sharing economy, make use of barter and sharing platforms, of crowdsourcing (including crowdfunding) platforms. This puts the OVN in a regime of abundance, which shifts the conditions for resources allocation. Moreover, OVNs maintain complex relations between autonomous stakeholders, which contribute to processes in various ways, including by supplying resources to ventures or projects (processes). This means that access rules, stewarding of pools of shared resources are based on new forms of property such as commons, pools of shareables and nondominium, to facilitate the flow of resources to processes (through their utilization by agents, recorded as events).

How do we optimize the flow of resources in an OVN?

From Coase's transactional theory perspective, information technology reduces the costs of transaction in the utilization of resources in processes, therefore resources can be handled in an open network. The OVN model is designed to make that possible.

The OVN organizational model determines how resources are governed. An OVN is:

• Open - low barrier access to processes (which assumes access to resources), based on the principle of equipotentiality.
• Transparent - free access to information and knowledge about processes and products, based on holoptism
• Decentralized - autonomy of agents and clusters of agents (such as ventures)
• Horizontal - not based on instituted power relations - see heterarchy

Thus, from openness, it follows that permission to use resources is more easily granted (also called use rights). The commons, pools of shareables and nondominium property regimes are more suitable in this context to guarantee access to use whenever appropriate. Private property confers the owner the right to refuse access without justification (if not secured by a contract), it provides a leverage in terms of access control to resources, to means of production, which can undermine productivity within the network and can even be considered as a vector of attack. Moreover, private property can hinder the flow of resources to processes since it requires negotiations / arrangements among all the collaborative parties, between owners and users.

Furthermore, openness is also about a better out -> inward flow of resources through crowdsourcing or sharing with the surrounding environment. The collaborative venture requires internal processes to be able to seemingly interface with these types of sharing economy and collaborative economy platforms.

From transparency, it follows that all accessible resources are identified and mapped (easy to find, inventory), that all the information about available resources is available and easy to understand, that procedures for access and use are clearly described.

From decentralization, it follows that resources are not owned by the organization, like it is the case with traditional firms, which legally own all the means of production and put them under the control of the shareholders. Most resources are either owned by individuals, shared or not owned by anyone (nondominium). For example, OVNs should not make use of centralized budgets, but should rather rely mostly on crowdsourcing.

For horizontal, there are no formal class divisions within an OVN, such as owners and workers. For example, all affiliates are entitled a share of benefits (including revenues), in proportion to their contributions, as evaluated by the NRP-CAS.

Relations with infrastructure modules

The governance applied to physical resources makes use of the three most important modules of the OVN infrastructure

• Contribution accounting system - records and evaluates contributions from affiliates
• Roles - type of contributions or cluster of activities
• Reputation - qualitative appreciation of affiliates, which describes how they contribute

For example, access to sensitive or dangerous equipment can take into consideration the Role of the affiliate, which can contain enough information about the ability of this affiliate to use the equipment in a correct and safe manner. Credentials can be attached to the Role. Reputation can affect one's access to resources. The use of scarce resources needs to be prioritized and this can be done with the help of the NRP-CAS. Scheduling must be applied to rivalrous resources, which can also can be done with the help of the NRP-CAS or NDO infrastructure.

Access to resources

Accessibility is related to property regime and rights.

Main categories of accessibility

• Free - Public, anyone can use/consume
• Protected or regulated - Requires some credentials based on skills, role, reputation, payment, ... Can also be regulated based on priority, scarcity, ...
• Formally restricted - Requires formal procedures for approval.

See more on the Resource type page.

Rights and the REA model.

Resource management

There are multiple types of needs for resource management - ownership, rules setting, access management, contribution accounting, insurance, maintenance and repairs, and custodianship as proposed by Yasir

About sharing

We need to distinguish between equipment that is shared from outside the network into the network and equipment that is shared within the network (and possibly to the outside)

Ownership and rules being set by owners for example is relevant for outside in shared assets. For inside-inside or inside-out shared assets there is a contributor of the equipment, but the equipment is held in nondominium so they may or may not have governance control over how that resource is used (they would probably start with it, but the operation of the governance equation on that asset would determine longer term decision making authority).

[as mentioned by Kurt]

Physical space

Space is a usable, it gets worn, require maintenance.

Categories of physical spaces

• Equipment space
  • R&D lab, can be white (positive pressure + air filtration), grey (air filtration) or dirty, used in R&D in optics, electronics, ...
  • Wet lab (like a chemical or biological lab)
  • Green lab (used for development of agricultural technics, biology and botany)
  • Fab lab (used for prototyping and fabrication using machining tools like CNC, 3D printing, and others), they are usually smelly, and/or dusty, and/or noisy
• Working space (office space containing office furniture and equipment)
• Common space (meeting rooms, eating rooms, service rooms, etc.)

Access to physical spaces and responsibilities for the user

Some spaces can have different scope parameters, which are also related to ownership. This determines access to use.

• Some spaces are the property of some affiliates, they are seen as assets of these affiliates and contributions to ventures. In this case, the owner has control over where and how these assets are used, based on the owner's goals, risk aversion, etc.
• Some spaces are part of the pool of shareables and use might be restricted depending on the scope associated with them.

NOTE: Restricted access base on skills might be required to use some spaces that are considered sensitive from safety and security perspective.

The user must verify its availability, scope, ownership and announce his/her intent to use a given spaces. This can also be done by using the planning tools of the NRP-CAS.

• If the user owns the space he/she needs to make sure that the activity intended in the space is allowed within it. The use can be logged into the NRP-CAS as a contribution to a venture.
• If the tool or equipment belongs to the pool of shareables the user needs to log it into the NRP-CAS and justify the use.
• If the space is owned by another affiliate and is used as a contribution by him/her then the user needs to justify the use, get permission to use and log it into the NRP-CAS. The scope is usually limited in this case. The contribution logged goes to the owner.
• The user might need to pay for the amount of time a space is used. In that case, if the space is owned by another affiliate the contribution logged goes to the user, not to the owner.

See also Sensorica Montreal lab rules

Usables

Are resources utilized in processes, not consumed during use, that get worn, require maintenance and eventualy replacement.

Usables can have different scope parameters, which are also related to ownership. This determines access to use.

• Some usables are in the private property regime. In this case, the owner has control over where and how these usables are used, based on the owner's goals, risk aversion, etc. When used in processes, in the context of a venture they are treated as material contributions.
• Some usables are part of the pool of shareables and use might be restricted depending on the scope associated with them, on the credentials required to manipulate them (ex. skills, reputation, affiliation status), on safety and security issues related to their manipulation, on their availability.

Examples

Tools and equipment

Restricted access base on skills might be required to use some tools and equipment that are considered potentially harmful.

The user must verify the availability of the equipment, its scope, its property regime, the associated credentials and announce his/her intent to use a given usable. All this can be done with the help of the NRP-CAS.

• If the user owns the tool or equipment he/she needs to make sure that its manipulation/use is allowed in the space where it will be used, if the space is not owned by user. The time of use can be logged into the NRP-CAS as a contribution to a venture.
• If the tool or equipment belongs to the pool of shareables the user needs to log the time of use in the NRP-CAS and justify the use.
• If the tool or equipment is owned by another affiliate and is used as a contribution by him/her then the user needs to justify the use, get permission to use and log the time of use into the NRP-CAS. The scope is usually limited in this case. The contribution logged goes to the owner.
• The user might need to pay for the amount of time a tool or equipment is used. In that case, if the resource is owned by another affiliate the contribution logged goes to the user, not to the owner.

SEE ALSO

• SENSORICA's Equipment management system document
• SENSORICA's case of a co-purchased 3D printer, and transfer from co-ownership to nondominium.
• Rules related to the use and sharing of materials

Consumables

Are consumed in use and need to be replenished.

Consumables can have different scope parameters, which are also related to ownership. This determines access to consume them.

• Some consumables are in private property regime. In that case, their use in a process, in the context of the venture, is treated as a material contribution to the ventures. In this case, the owner has control over where and how these consumables are used, based on the owner's goals, risk aversion, etc.
• Some consumables are part of the pool of shareables and use might be restricted depending on the scope associated with this consumable, the technical skills required to manipulate it or safety and security issues related to its manipulation.

NOTE: Restricted access base on skills might be required to use some consumables that are considered potentially harmful.

Example

The user must verify the availability, scope, and ownership of the consumable and must announce his/her intent to consume a gives quantity. This can also be done by using the inventory and planning tools of the NRP-CAS.

• If the user owns the consumable he/she needs to make sure that its manipulation is allowed in the space where it will be used, if the space is not owned by user. The consumption can be logged into the NRP-CAS as a contribution to a venture.
• If the consumable belongs to the pool of shareables the user needs to log the quantity consumed into the NRP-CAS and justify the consumption.
• If the consumable is owned by another affiliate and is consumed as a contribution by him/her then the user needs to justify the consumption, get permission to consume it and log the quantity consumed into the NRP-CAS. The scope is usually limited in this case. The contribution logged goes to the owner.
• The user might need to pay for the quantity of consumable used. In that case, if the consumable is owned by another affiliate the contribution logged goes to the user, not to the owner.

dWeb-based Nondominium INFRASTRUCTURE NOTES

Governance-as-Operator Architecture Specification: The governance-as-operator architecture establishes a clear separation between data management and business logic enforcement in the nondominium system. This design enables independent evolution of resource data structures and governance rules, providing a foundation for modular, maintainable, and extensible decentralized resource management. More on Github. The Resource and Governance zomes (modules) adopt a "governance as operator" paradigm, wherein resources remain static until explicitly modified through governance actions. This architectural approach ensures that all state transitions are governed by well-defined rules embedded within the resource itself. It also establishes a clear separation between data management and business logic enforcement. This design pattern enables independent evolution of resource data structures and governance rules, providing modularity, testability, and swappability.

Core Architectural Principles:

• The Resource zome operates as a pure data model responsible for resource specification management, economic resource lifecycle operations, and data persistence. It contains no business logic or validation rules, performing only CRUD operations on data structures. All governance decisions are delegated to the Governance zome through well-defined cross-zome interfaces.
• The Governance zome functions as a state transition operator, evaluating governance rules and policies, validating agent permissions and roles, authorizing or rejecting state transitions, and generating economic events for audit trails. Its logic is implemented as pure functions that evaluate state transitions without side effects, enabling comprehensive unit testing and governance scheme swappability.

More on Github.

web2-based NRP-CAS INFRASTRUCTURE NOTES

In the web2 NRP-CAS we've added location to physical Resources (equipment/tools, consumables and space) and access rules. See See on Github, an initiative driven by Tibi, Lynn and Bob. Some requirements at that time were:

• We need to make consumables "followable" so that affiliates who contribute to them can follow their use. This means that whenever the use of a consumable is planned the contributor gets an automatic update. An issue was created on Github.
• An issue was also created on Github about potential to induce harm of resources - open issue.
• 10 June 2014 Sensoricans worked on a resource management mobile app based on QR codes. See github repository. See video.
• We are now (Mai 2014) collaborating with Alex &Share on a more robust resource management interface with transactional capabilities.
• John proposes a RFID system for physical resource management.

Links

1. Sensorica's Diigo list for "resource management" tag
2. Bob's document on Rights use underlying resource

Use cases

The case of Philippe Comtois and Sensorica