not sure if you read the paper Heathcote parkinson publish in 1955, but he found the same bureaucracy growth in the Admiralty when the need for it was diminishing. http://www.economist.com/business-finance/management/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14116121 he develop laws based on it. The Law of Multiplication of Subordinates The Law of Multiplication of Work
So the process has just taken on new trapping. ========================= BJ Freeman http://bjfreeman.elance.com Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> David E Jones sent the following on 4/30/2010 4:20 PM: > That's a timely quote. What baffles me is that anyone would think that > computer automation would reduce the size of any sort of bureau. People > certainly do believe that though... recent evidence of that is the recent > political claim that we can reduce healthcare costs by investing in computer > automation. It's telling that almost no one in the technology industry > disputed this claim... ;) > > The opposite is really quite true, but IMO only because that's the way things > are designed. 99% of the time automation is used to enable centralization and > increase bureaucracy. There's a good reason for that: bureaucracies can only > increase to a certain level with a certain set of technologies and to grow > beyond that without causing implosion (the only way they reduce in size) > requires new technology. Unfortunately large bureaucracies (both public and > private) fund most technology development and so most technology development > is designed to help bureaucracies increase in size. QED. > > However, it doesn't have to be that way. Technology can be designed for > different things, like facilitating decentralization by helping individuals > and small groups compete with large ones. Large organizations are far less > efficient than small ones, and usually have enormous overhead (which is > usually the whole point of the large organization: to support the large > overhead). If individuals and small organizations had the means to > collaborate without forming a large, centralized organization then they could > likely compete fairly well. > > So why doesn't that happen? There seem to be lots of things getting in the > way, but the first is the nearly universal belief that large organizations > exist to take care of our needs and are beneficent by nature, so even what > I've written above would be considered "quackery" and a "conspiracy > theory"... and that's only barrier #1! Other barriers get much worse... even > current IP law makes it almost impossible for smaller organizations to > collaborate with distributed IP ownership and compete with an organization > that centrally owns the IP. For example, if small manufacturers would > collaborate on designs and standards and then compete on implementation and > price then it would be far better for consumers than producers that create > intentional incompatibility and lock-in, and it would facilitate distributed > organizations instead of centralized ones. > > Could that happen in our culture and with current public and private forces? > IMO yes, in a couple of ways. Large organizations usually end in collapse, > opening opportunities for smaller ones to fill the vacuum. Large orgs also > tend to step on people, and when enough people get stepped on they'll form a > sufficiently large group of independents working together to effectively > compete even if the large org is strong. As one who has tried though... the > barriers to that are astounding, partly because most people by nature prefer > competition to collaboration. I guess that brings us back to where we > started, so I'll get back to work. :) > > -David > > > On Apr 28, 2010, at 9:31 AM, BJ Freeman wrote: > >> Data expands to fill the space available for storage. >> A modern version is that no amount of computer automation will reduce >> the size of a bureaucracy >> parkinson laws by Heathcote Parkinson >> Boy that dates me. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law >> >> ========================= >> BJ Freeman >> http://bjfreeman.elance.com >> Strategic Power Office with Supplier Automation >> <http://www.businessesnetwork.com/automation/viewforum.php?f=93> >> Specialtymarket.com <http://www.specialtymarket.com/> >> >> Systems Integrator-- Glad to Assist >> >> Chat Y! messenger: bjfr33man >> Linkedin >> <http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1237480&locale=en_US&trk=tab_pro> >> >> >> David E Jones sent the following on 4/28/2010 1:45 AM: >>> +1 >>> >>> -David >>> >>> P.S. Quick, get your foot in the door! Throw in buggy stuff while you have >>> a chance... you can commit bug fixes later but not new features. ;) >>> >>> P.P.S. Sorry, I couldn't resist. I'm becoming obsessed with looking at rule >>> systems and guessing at behavior people will use to game the system. >>> >>> >>> On Apr 28, 2010, at 3:10 AM, Jacopo Cappellato wrote: >>> >>>> This is the vote thread to create a new release branch (not a release yet) >>>> named "release10.04". >>>> This branch will represent a feature freeze and releases will be created >>>> over time out of it: all the commits in this branch will be for bug fixes >>>> only, no new features. >>>> >>>> Vote: >>>> >>>> [ +1] create the branch "release10.04" >>>> [ -1] do not create the branch >>>> >>>> We will use the same rules for votes on releases (vote passes if there are >>>> more binding +1 than -1 and if there are at least 3 binding +1) >>>> For more details about this process please read this >>>> http://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html >>>> >>>> Kind Regards, >>>> >>>> Jacopo >>> >> > >
