Marc Edelman of CUNY has written on network forms and social organizations in Central America. See When Networks Don’t Work: The Rise and Fall and Rise of Civil Society Initiatives in Central America

Not having read this very carefully -- okay, I just skimmed it -- I'm thinking that considerations of the "network form" need to be revisited in light of the network science/network theory. As Arquilla and Ronfeldt themselves touched on in their later writings, "networks" as social or organizational structures or forms has its own social science literature and history; but "network form" as a category should not be confused or conflated with the contributions from the physicists and others working throught the concepts of networks as a universal architecture characterized by superconnectors, links distributed among nodes according to power laws, with features like network cost, speed, dimension, etc.; laws that describe their growth and change; etc. etc. etc.

For example, Edelman writes "Networks are typically represented by social scientists and by their participants as two-dimensional linkages between nodes or focal points of equal weight or significance. This portrayal– whether of “chain,” “star and hub,” or “all channel” network forms (Arquilla & Ronfeldt 2001a:8)– often fails to capture how networks are experienced by those who participate in them (Riles 2001)."

The network science conception of networks however is more dynamic and "dimensional" (see the maps of the Internet for example). Using network science concepts to analyze social networks I suspect take us beyond the limits that Edelman notes.

Or, "network-form" organizations will be more effective by understanding the laws of networks.

jd