Ferro em DeLanda (2019 [2006])

An important deterritorializing factor affecting both forms is a turbulent environment, such as that created by a high rate of innovation in products or processes. What matters here is the relation between the rate of change inside organizations, a rate affected by a variety of sources of organizational inertia, and the rates of change of technologies outside of them, in the same industry in other countries, or in different industries in the same country. When considering entire industries we are less concerned with the ability of their member organizations to adapt (given enough time all organizations can adapt) than their ability to time internal changes to external shocks, particularly when the external shocks become continuous. [Nota de rodapé 32: Walter W. Powell and Paul J. DiMaggio ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, in Powell and DiMaggio (eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, pp. 71–2.] To the extent that the capacity to track continuous shocks demands a collective response from an entire organizational network, the location of the network in the continuum of forms may determine the conditions of success or failure. The sharp separation of planning from doing characteristic of economies of scale limits the number of people in an organization that are involved in adapting to change, while the flatter hierarchies of smaller organizations and their use of skilled labour allows entire firms to learn from experience. In addition, the consultative coordination between firms and suppliers characteristic of economies of agglomeration may extend the benefits of learning by doing to the entire network. The faster the rate of innovation, the more a given network will benefit from the collective learning process of the small-firm extreme, and the more inadequate the self-sufficient approach of an oligopoly of large firms will become. (DeLanda 2019 [2006]:81)

Let us now give an assemblage analysis of these regionalized locales, starting with individual buildings. The material role in buildings is played, first of all, by those components that allow them to be successful load-bearing structures. For buildings that are a few storeys high, the walls themselves perform this task, in conjunction with columns and independent beams, but large governmental, religious and corporate buildings must make use of more sophisticated techniques as they become taller. As skyscraper designers know well, radical changes in form may be needed once a critical height has been reached, such as the use of an interconnected iron or steel frame which, beginning in the 1850s, liberated walls from their load-bearing duties transforming them into mere curtains. Other [95] components playing a material role are those determining the connectivity of the regions of a building. If locales are stations where the daily paths of individual persons converge, the regions that subdivide them must be connected to each other to allow for the circulation of human bodies and a variety of other material entities.[Nota de rodapé 4: Fernand Braudel, The Structures of Everyday Life (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992), p. 267] In a simple dwelling, this connectivity is effected via doors, hallways and staircases shaping the flow of people, and by windows for the circulation of air and light. In taller buildings, on the other hand, internal transportation technology may be needed. Thus, the same decade that saw the introduction of the internal metallic frame also witnessed the transformation of old mechanical lifting devices into the earliest elevators, and a corresponding transformation in the vertical connectivity of buildings. (DeLanda 2019 [2006]:94-5)

DELANDA, Manuel. 2019 [2006]. A new philosophy of society: assemblage theory and social complexity. London: Bloomsbury Academic.