Not sure I am following this logic. What is considered common config? Give an example because to me configurations are usually unique because for example each human is unique, we try to configure to our environments but I wouldn’t say we have common configurations because we are complex, but if you are saying that perception (who’s perception… the whole group or the individual) may not actually be the configuration that you configured as the actual configuration which is more realistic, well that makes perfect sense because in a network process there is self organization going on that will compliment the configuration or adapt to it and that means that both sides of the configuration will do some adjusting in order for it to work together. There are very few configurations that are simple updates to any system. This is why the cost of configurations is usually very high. Our aim in my opinion is not to establish configurations but to adapt by allowing collaboration up front in developing the solutions where any configs are built into the solutions with all members in agreement therefore it will be pushed as an enterprise solutions and not just between specific entities. We might look at what is happening right now in Washington, Congress is pushing for a different config than the President and vise-a-versa. Both sides are planning configurations without collaboration, so what happens is more adjustments will have to be made after the fact instead of during the development process. Oh, I left one thing out about Washington; they are dysfunctional as a self-organizing entity because they don’t have the same intent for the country. If they did, we might see some of this self-organization being developed.