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
  • June 15, 2017
  • Krista
  • 0 Comments

We are excited to announce our first customer speaker for Driven 2017. Quang Ton, leader of Schlumberger's pro...

  • June 12, 2017
  • Scott
  • 0 Comments

We had the pleasure of presenting Brazos CX Insights to the bpmNEXT 2017 conference in April.  As we've previ...

  • June 11, 2017
  • Scott
  • 2 Comments

Anatoly does a great job of explaining the event types and why you really only need 5 or 6 of them to fully ex...