Bertrand Duperrin's Library tagged → View Popular, Search in Google
"La taille d’une organisation influe sur les modes de prise de décision, de transfert d’information ou de coopération, ce qui fait que les « bonnes recettes » à 10 personnes ne fonctionnent pas forcément à 100 ou encore moins à 1000. Plus précisément, un grand nombre de problèmes apparaissent lorsque la taille augmente, et l’efficacité n’est pas proportionnelle à la force de travail disponible. Cette constatation n’est pas sans rappeler ce qu’on observe dans les systèmes parallèles (cf. la loi d’Admdhal) qui montre que la puissance que l’on obtient en multipliant les processeurs est compensée par la tâche croissante de synchronisation. Ce n’est pas une surprise : les petites structures souffrent moins des problèmes de coordination et de synchronisation !"
-
La tentation d’éviter les tares des grandes organisations opérationnelles en les découpant en plus petites est pertinente si le coefficient est faible, et pas forcément efficace dans le cas contraire. Ce qui nous ramène à la thèse initiale : la bonne organisation dépend du contexte et de la taille.
-
Je pense que la taille de 150 est un seuil critique dans la gestion des organisations, et ceci est conforté par 20 ans de discussions avec des managers opérationnels.
- 15 more annotation(s)...
"I’m going to take a swipe at another cherished social software notion: Serendipity. We should ban that word from the social software lexicon. It’s misleading and it makes enterprise social software seem about as relevant to the business as the plastic mistletoe hanging at the office Holiday party: Something amazing could happen, but it probably won’t."
-
The point is that social software doesn’t enable serendipity; it transforms serendipity into probability
-
Companies and their leaders only take social software seriously when they see it as part of mainstream business process. Mainstream business process is all about repeatability and scalability.
"One of the most difficult challenges companies face today is how to be more flexible and adaptive in a dynamic, volatile business environment. How do you build a company that can identify and capitalize on opportunities, navigate around risks and other challenges, and respond quickly to changes in the environment? How do you embed that kind of agility into the DNA of your company?
The answer is to distribute control in such a way that decisions can be made as quickly and as close to customers as possible. There is no way for people to respond and adapt quickly if they have to get permission before they can do anything."
-
If you want an adaptive company, you will need to unleash the creative forces in your organization, so people have the freedom to deliver value to customers and respond to their needs more dynamically. One way to do this is by enabling small, autonomous units that can act and react quickly and easily, without fear of disrupting other business activities – pods.
-
A pod is a small, autonomous unit that is enabled and empowered to deliver the things that customers value.
- 10 more annotation(s)...
"La maîtrise des processus demeure l’un des différenciateurs majeurs en termes de création de valeur dans le monde de l’entreprise. Même aujourd’hui, il ne suffit pas d’avoir les produits les plus inventifs. Il convient aussi de les produire et de les distribuer de façon efficace pour gagner sur le terrain économique."
-
Reste que la recherche de la taille maximale se paie en général par un autre prix : rigidité des structures internes, communication interne limitée voire défaillante, opacité, jeux politiques, manque d’innovation et de soutien à la motivation des travailleurs.
-
Comment éviter, cela dit, que la décentralisation, liée au modèle 2.0, n’entraîne une diminution substantielle des économies d’échelle et, dès lors, de la marge bénéficiaire des grandes entreprises ?
- 3 more annotation(s)...
Twitter and Myspace are different companies in different markets but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that they share, and will always share, the exact same problem. MySpace and Twitter are hugely popular for uses neither company anticipated. The mission of each company is so vague that their products are stretched and molded into a variety of different uses. Instead of targeting and building their business around one of these users they take their sudden popularity as a sign they have a killer product. They don’t.
The population size of this system isn't quite the issue, but I put some thought into what enterprise 2.0 deployment issues might appear with scale and came up with the following chart. I hope this can help other maturing e2.0 environments consider some of the issues they may be coming up agains
In recent posts we've described a massive institutional transformation that will occur as part of the big shift: the move from institutions designed for scalable efficiency to institutions designed for scalable learning. The core questions we all need to address are: who will drive this transformation? Who will be the agents of change? Will it be institutional leaders from above or individuals from below and from the outside of our current institutions?
-
From the talent side of the equation the key requirement for institutional success is to move from scalable efficiency to scalable learning.
-
talent will pull institutions into the 21st century.
- 1 more annotation(s)...
Selected Tags
Related Tags
Top Contributors
Groups interested in scalabil...
-
Scalability
Items: 4 | Visits: 16
Created by: Russell Harrison
-
Platforms that Move
Includes moves crowds, ad pl...
Items: 2 | Visits: 5
Created by: Jon DeLaurie
Diigo is about better ways to research, share and collaborate on information. Learn more »
Join Diigo
