I think it’s theory. There is no “journal of coordination science”. We can’t peer review each other, no shared language exists1.
We pretty much figured out most of the theory, but we haven’t peer reviewed each other. ORI is coordination infrastructure, @ISeePattern, @SpeakerJohnAsh, and a few others2 have deduced it, all call it something very different, but it’s the same thing. Such is the nature of doing science in a pre-paradigmatic field.
And then, after we get some pieces of theory, we can test them. This is something where you basically give away free advice, and whoever wants to take it, who thinks it might work, can test it, and they (benefit financially, executing in the industry) and the scientist benefits knowledge wise. But the bottleneck for THAT right now is culture science (we do NOT have a culture where people feel comfortable “stealing ideas”. We gotta rebrand that.)
Footnotes
-
cc @nosilverv on that tweet where I got the idea of “naming something is a schelling point”. Like naming exactly what it means to “work on coordination” accelerates it. ↩
-
@OwenKemeys has a paper on a specific aspect. I feel like there’s generally a good synergy between people who think “big picture” but can’t work on small details. And those who get small details right but don’t see the big picture ↩