I’m reading Richard Florida’s 2002 book The Rise of the Creative Class. I came across a little excerpt which is quite funny, because it really dates the book, based on how things played out after it was published.

In this excerpt, Florida is considering whether work has transformed to be centered more around projects rather than companies.

In a 2001 magazine article, [Dan] Pink, noting the rapid rise and short corporate life span of Netscape, asked: “Was Netscape a company or a project? Does it make any difference?” Of course it does. Companies that persist and grow, like AOL Time Warner, which swallowed Netscape, wield great market influence and get to dictate the nature of future “projects.”

Here in 2010 I don’t think AOL Time Warner stands as a great example of persistence, growth, or market influence. On top of that, The Mozilla Project, which came from the discarded wreckage of Netscape after AOL Time Warner bought it, flourished and eventually produced Firefox, a truly great piece of software that has led to many innovations — forcing companies like Microsoft to play catch-up. (think tabbed browsing, for example).

I think projects have grown in significance, compared to companies. If you have a project, after all, you’ve got work. So what’s a company for, then? It’s changed over time, but I think the company is still relevant. Perhaps I’ll explore that question further in an upcoming post.