information. From this perspective, uncertainty represents knowledge scarcity or risk
(as a potential danger) which should preferably be eliminated, or at least, reduced.
From another (e.g. an entrepreneur) point of view, however, uncertainty can also
be construed as flexibility, freedom, opportunities, options, path independency.
When this point of view is applied to infrastructure resources, supporting the
infrastructure to satisfy unknown or not easily foreseeable uses, activities, and
(non)markets, provides options and opens doors for development and innovation;
it bypasses lock-in and the limitations of path dependency. Gaynor (2003) argues
that in highly uncertain environments, where the value of prospective applications is
uncertain, it may be more efficient to uphold a flexible, decentralized management
structure, one that has not been optimized or prioritized for a specific application or
restricted range of applications.
References
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95.
Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities. Public goods, and club goods.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaynor, M. (2003). Network services investment guide: Maximising ROI in uncertain times.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Hall, J. W., Nicholls, R. J., Hickford, A. J., & Tran, M. (Eds.). (2016). The future of national
infrastructure: A system of systems approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 67, 130.
Poirier, M. (2008). Natural resources, congestion and the feminist future: Aspects of Frischmann’s
theory of infrastructure resources. Ecology Law Quarterly, 35(2), 179.
References
497
(as a potential danger) which should preferably be eliminated, or at least, reduced.
From another (e.g. an entrepreneur) point of view, however, uncertainty can also
be construed as flexibility, freedom, opportunities, options, path independency.
When this point of view is applied to infrastructure resources, supporting the
infrastructure to satisfy unknown or not easily foreseeable uses, activities, and
(non)markets, provides options and opens doors for development and innovation;
it bypasses lock-in and the limitations of path dependency. Gaynor (2003) argues
that in highly uncertain environments, where the value of prospective applications is
uncertain, it may be more efficient to uphold a flexible, decentralized management
structure, one that has not been optimized or prioritized for a specific application or
restricted range of applications.
References
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, S95.
Cornes, R., & Sandler, T. (1996). The theory of externalities. Public goods, and club goods.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaynor, M. (2003). Network services investment guide: Maximising ROI in uncertain times.
Hoboken: Wiley.
Hall, J. W., Nicholls, R. J., Hickford, A. J., & Tran, M. (Eds.). (2016). The future of national
infrastructure: A system of systems approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanifan, L. J. (1916). The rural school community center. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 67, 130.
Poirier, M. (2008). Natural resources, congestion and the feminist future: Aspects of Frischmann’s
theory of infrastructure resources. Ecology Law Quarterly, 35(2), 179.
References
497