Theo Priestley on Social #BPM

  • April 14, 2010
  • Scott
  • 0 Comments

Theo 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
  • April 27, 2017
  • Ariana
  • 0 Comments

How do you utilize QA in the best way to ensure a successful process automation project ...

  • April 26, 2017
  • Scott
  • 0 Comments

Neil Ward-Dutton also delivered a talk at bpmNEXT to help kick things off.  As in previous years, Neil presen...

  • April 25, 2017
  • Scott
  • 0 Comments

Jim Sinur presented again at bpmNEXT this year - this time in his new role at Aragon Research.  He focused on...