Seite: 431, Zeilen: 27-44
|Quelle: Arquilla Ronfeldt 2001|
Seite(n): 7, 8, 9, Zeilen: 7: 24ff; 8: 1ff; 9: 4ff
|Networks come in basically three types :
(1) The chain network, as in a smuggling chain, where people, goods, or information move along a line of separated contacts and where end-to-end communication must travel through the intermediate nodes. (2) The star, hub, or wheel network, as in a terrorist syndicate or a cartel structure, where a set of actors is tied to a central node or actor and all must go through that node to communicate and coordinate with each other. (3) The all-channel network, as in a collaborative network of small militant groups, in which every group or node is connected to every other node.
Each type of network may be suited to different conditions and purposes, and there may be any number of hybrids. The all-channel network has historically been the most difficult to organize and sustain, partly because of the dense communications required. Yet the all-channel network is the type that is gaining strength from the information revolution. The design is flat. Ideally, there is no single, central leadership or command or headquarters—-no precise heart or head that can be targeted. Decision-making and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy .
9. Arquilla, J., Ronfeldt, D.: Swarming and a Future of Conflict. RAND National Defense Institute (2001)
10. Hoffman, B.: Terrorism evolves Toward Netwar. RAND Review 22(2) (1999)
networks come in basically three types or topologies (see Figure 1.1):
Each type may be suited to different conditions and purposes, [...] There may also be hybrids of the three types,[...]
Of the three network types, the all-channel has been the most difficult to organize and sustain, partly because it may require dense communications. But it is the type that gives the network form its new, high potential for collaborative undertakings and that is gaining new strength from the information revolution. [...] The organizational design is flat. Ideally, there is no single, central leadership, command, or headquarters—-no precise heart or head that can be targeted. [...] Decisionmaking and operations are decentralized, allowing for local initiative and autonomy.
The source is given at the beginning, but it is not clear to the reader that the source is being followed verbatim at times and also in one paragraph further down.