Thanks for sharing this, Pieter. Some quick thoughts about the analytical framework itself:
Origin of coordination: who or what initiates the process, and with what legitimacy or authority.
This “dimension”, as well as the others, seems to imply power is already there from the start. As I interpret it, those are basic definitions that define the nature of coordination from the word go. And if those definitions include power than it is unclear why we should think of power as an “emergent” property of coordination, since emergent phenomena deal with the appearance of the new out from the assemble of the old (a controversial general claim in and of itself, but I leave it aside for now).
A Thread is to coordination what a bit is to information, or what a transaction is to an economy: the basic unit of relational action.
A basic unit is defined by fixed parameters. It’s usefulness arises from its commensurability and universality. Is a Thread really a basic unit? It seems to be a relation in itself. Its parameters are dependent on the specific relationship between the connected entities. I’m struggling to see any meaningful way of making the Thread commensurable and universal, i.e., without loosing its content and significance.