On Sun, 21 Apr 1996 DHurst1046@aol.com wrote:
> But from systems perspective, we have just
> substituted some forms of hierarchical control for others. While these
> forms of hierarchy may liberate the system at the individual level at
> first, they will constrain people in their turn. Anyone who has tried to
> change a "legacy" computer system can testify that big software programs
> can be just as difficult to manage and change as any human bureaucracy!
I tend to agree with you but I'm not sure.
My previous guess was that another purpose of a corporate hierarchy,
asides from control, is as a selection mechanism for decision makers to
filter the information they make decisions with - to provide decision
makers with high quality information - information on what's important to
various stakeholders in the system.
The set of selection mechanisms that replaces the corporate hierarcy will
determine the quality of the information that decision makers make
Your example of a "legacy" computer system may be a selection mechanism
that does not allow decision makers to access high quality information
more efficiently than a corporate hierarchy.
Future corporate intranets and other forms of teleconferencing may allow
decision makers to access high quality information more efficiently than
a corporate hierarchy.
Andrew Moreno <email@example.com>
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <firstname.lastname@example.org> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>