In a message dated 96-11-29 21:57:45 EST, At wrote:
These dyadic symbiosis (symbolised as X - Y for all three types)
can be extended into
* chains like A - B - C - D - E -.....
* clusters in which members B, C, D, E, ... each are linked to a
central member A, but not to each other.
In the chain we can observe the dyads A - B, B - C, C - D, etc.
In the cluster we can observe the dyads A - B, A - C, A - D, etc.
When the members do not differ to much from each other, a chain
is formed. When the one member is much more complex than the
others, a cluster is formed with that member becoming the
central one.
--- End of Quote ---
This is very interesting to me, especially since it has significant
parallels to network design. The way each entity is linked in the system,
determines how efficient the system will work. The most important part of
designing a proficient network is determining how each entity should be
linked.
There are a number of factors to consider in doing this:
1- Is the network linked in such a way that there is "alternate routes" in
case one of the entities is malfunctioning?
2- Are the links defined in such a way that there are one or more
bottlenecks (or congestion points), which make it difficult for
information to move through the system? (Hierarchical network designs are
the worst in my opinion, because they create too many congestion points.
There are other topologies much better suited to the efficient
distribution of information.)
The list could go on, but I think I've said enough to communicate the
basic idea. Our hierarchical organizations suffer from the same type of
problem defined in #2 -- there are simply too many congestion points for
information to flow freely throughout the organization. This makes it very
difficult for the entire organization to access, interpert, and act on new
information.
--Benjamin B. Compton bbcompton@aol.com
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>