Theo Priestley on Social #BPM
April 14th, 2010 by Scott FrancisTheo Priestley on Social BPM (vs. Traditional):
“The simple answer is that hierarchy is good for repeatability and measurability, whereas self-organizing networks are better at invention,” Gabe said, “There are a lot of side effects and consequences. The lack of titles (roles) is primarily an internal signaling tool.”
“The alternate answer is that organizations that think they are hierarchical actually don’t gain advantage by it (they actually have hidden networks), and that the hierarchical appearance is the result of rent-seeking.”
So can we not design and define an enterprise on the same principles and see the same effect but on a much grander scale ? Is there a half-way house where both ideals can co-exist until we are ready to throw the shackles away for good?
Why not?
Related posts:
- Whither Social BPM?
- Quick Review of “Social #BPM”
- Social Myths
- The Process around Social Tools
- Adaptive, Dynamic, and Social BPM
Tags: Social BPM, Theo Priestley