Topic: No monopoly (Read 2573 times)

I think that it depends on the organization where more decentralization increases efficiency. I don't think that a completely centralized organization is efficient, nor do I think that a completely decentralized organization is efficient. I disagree with myrkul there. I do however believe that many organizations could benefit from more decentralization than they currently have, and that it takes a good boss to dare to let go of some control, which really is what decentralization is about.

Namcalling - that's a step down from parroting - reaching the bottom of your logic barrel already are we?

Why would I need a unit?  I'm not quantifying my abilities with Linux.  Are you saying you aren't quantifying "efficiency" (whatever that means) - that would be pretty silly.

Anyway, as demonstrated earlier.  Your point is dead.

Lulz. So nobody knows what "slope" means? (either of a line or a line tangent to the curve) or "rate of change" for that matter?

Thank you. Do you agree that the FBI and corporations benefit from being partly decentralized, as opposed to being completely centralized? Based on your description, EVERY organization should strive to be completely one way or the other!

I don't know why you even still bother talking to him. I gave up on him long ago. Every now and then I'll read one of his posts but I always regret it so I just avoid him altogether. I recommend you do the same.

In your signature, you claim to be "rather good" with Linux. What's the unit of "goodness"?

Putz.

Same thing.  What's the unit of "efficiency"?  Anyway, as demonstrated above your point is pretty much moot.

Efficiency. I thought I made that clear here:
You're an idiot.
Moving on:


I don't feel like actually going to the trouble of breaking out the graphics program, so I'll describe it:
X Axis: Decentralization of command structure, 0 being hierarchical, endpoint being complete individual autonomy
Y Axis: Efficiency, as defined by either profit/costs or speed of response to changing conditions. 0 being inefficient, endpoint being maximum efficiency.
I contend that though the line may not start at (0,0) or (0,100), but that from the start point, the line is straight, and either direct or inverse, or that it looks like the bitcoin supply curve (or again, the inverse). The curve "reversing" would look like a parabola, starting out either direct or inverse, and switching at some point to the other.

Actually, I'd say that the Wiki makes the whole thing less clear but anyway.  If there exists organizations - that is groups of people who are attempting to accomplish some set of tasks - which can not benefit - that is increase (or decrease) some metric - from decentralization - that is pushing decision making toward the bottom of the organizational pyramid.  Then I'd say that the discussion is pretty much over.  As this would necessitate the existence of organizations for which decentralization would only benefit to a limited degree after which further decentralization would be to the organizations detriment. QED

But who knows what these guys/gals are actually talking about...maybe everyone is just referring to some set of trivial cases...wouldn't be the first time!  

Ok, let us skip the semantics and just use this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Decentralization&oldid=444266119

I feel like we've all been "dancing around" the contentious claim: if some decentralization helps, then complete is best. What about the FBI, whose intermediate decentralization goes too far? What about corporations, whose intermediate centralization already appears to be optimized? WTF does a curve "reversing" even look like?

If you've given up on meaningful conversation with another user, fine, don't bother. Everyone can see for themselves what has been written and personal attacks accomplish nothing.

As is becoming your trademark.  You are completely incorrect.  I gave you a clear question about your position which you refuse to answer.  That is not discussing discussing topics.  However like I said I'm fine with having meta discussion but it's silly to whine about my doing so when you won't answer a question about your point.

Primarily when instigated by other people (like what you are doing right now!) QED baby!  

Your point is pretty horribly defined...Curve of what "betterness"?  What is the metric?
Again a pretty terrible definition.  What does the boss do?  Provide information on what to work on?  So a centralized system has all work dolled out from a central source? Is any increase in worker autonomy - that is the worker is now able to choose their tasks - considered ...well...to increase whatever the metric is you think you are looking at?  Does any reduction in work being assigned from a single source decentralize an organization?  Does any amalgamation of work assignment into a single source centralize an organization?


Even then, if you don't define your metric the answer is indeterminate.  For example, if you're trying to optimize security - information sequestering (which includes putting the information into separate networks) *is* beneficial.

myrkul - Unfortunately not, I have been using the same definition. Would you please draw one of these curves you have been talking about?

Good point.

Let me clarify: When I say "Centralization", I mean "Centralization of command structure" ie: there is a distinct "boss"
When I say "Decentralization", I mean "an increase in individual autonomy".

I hope this helps. I doubt it, but I still hope.

The problem is you're just using a vague term "centralization" without describing exactly what's being centralized. Would the FBI benefit if all of their people were centralized to a single (very large) room? No. Would the FBI benefit if all of their data was centralized to a single network? Yes. Centralization is good and bad, depending on what's being centralized. As long as you're being vague, you won't reach any meaningful conclusions.

I'll assume that you are implicitly accepting that the FBI would be more efficient if it was more centralized. If so, then one of two things must be true:
A) More centralization would help, all the way up to complete centralization. The director should be hands-on at the expense of everything else. Field agents should have no autonomy, instead following orders from the top down.
B) More centralization would help, up to a point. Once this point is crossed, the curve "reverses".

Right? If I'm waaaaaay off, could you draw me a few of these curves you describe?

All I've ever seen you do. You don't discuss topics. You discuss discussing topics.

I'm So Meta Even This Acronym.

And I'm not looking for examples of organizations suffering from decentralization. I know that some organizations benefit with centralization. I'm looking for a single example of the curve reversing. 

In fact, organizations can suffer from extreme decentralization. For example, some analysts believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) experiences some problems because all its structure and systems are based on the assumption that crime needs to be investigated after it happens. Over time, this assumption led to a situation where, instead of following an overarching strategy, each FBI unit is completely decentralized and field agents determine how investigations should be pursued. It has been argued that due to the change in the nature of crimes, the FBI needs to gather accurate intelligence before a crime is committed; this requires more centralized decision making and strategy development.

Brazil, J. J. (2007, April). Mission: Impossible? Fast Company, 114, 92–109.

So is buying milk but I won't bother doing that unless I'm out.   If you're not going to commit to a position then it's no skin off my nose.  I sure don't mind having meta-discussion. I'm pretty easy about these things.   Like I said you made it sound pretty clear cut but hey if it's not then I don't really have to argue to make my point.  Good job!  

Completely incorrect.  You instigated dancing around (what I assume) is your point.  Furthermore it's the only thing you are devoting any energy to (in this conversation).  Contradiction city! LOL!

Do you consider corporations to be completely centralized, partially decentralized, completely decentralized, or not applicable? I might be misunderstanding you, because corporations already optimize themselves for efficiency.

It's a fairly simple request. Give me one example where the efficiency/decentralization curve reverses.

I'll freely admit that there are organizations where decentralization would hurt efficiency. That's not what I'm talking about. I am saying, if a little decentralization is good, then more is better, and complete is best.

If you can't find one example to refute it, then fess up yourself. I don't feel like dancing today.

Oh hey, it's the argumentation of fifteen year olds! (parroting).

Lulz, No it's not a "no" but it's kind of amusing how you've just become rather cagey about a point you made sound, at least to me as if it was pretty clear cut.  What's the point in me  dragging out examples if this isn't what you are saying?   I thought Atlas was the only person who demanded people attack strawmen for his amusement.  If you've just realized you've said something stupid then just fess up.  It happens.