3 ms·
> The work capacity of an organization scales, at most, linearly as new members are added. This is going to sound kind of grim, but a counterexample here is, e
by dvt 7y ago
> The work capacity of an organization scales, at most, linearly as new members are added.
This is going to sound kind of grim, but a counterexample here is, e.g., a Southern plantation where children of slaves were also born into slavery, yielding a superlinear work capacity. With that said, even though I intuitively agree with the statement, I think other (more contemporary) counterexamples might exist.
> Coherence costs grow quadratically as new members are added.
I see the point here, but I'm not sure how I can reconcile it with the reality of modern-day armed forces: where millions of organizational members function extremely efficiently (possibly due to very rigid organizational structures -- which the article doesn't really touch on). It seems there's a ratio between dyads and "organizational strength" which probably yields "true" coherence.
- scribu 7y ago> the reality of modern-day armed forces: millions of organizational members function extremely efficiently How do you define "extremely efficiently" in this case?
- cortesoft 7y agoI don't think your slavery example is really a counterexample... those children are new members. The linear scale is about people to productivity, not 'cost of a new worker' vs productivity. Also, the military is different; it is not really trying to produce anything new, so isn't the same type of work.
- dvt 7y ago> The linear scale is about people to productivity According to the article, the scale is about "hiring" to "work capacity" -- the author specifically points out that productivity is another ballgame altogether. (FWIW, I'm not sure what "hiring" means in the context of slavery -- I suppose a Roman-style post-war enslavement could be one equivalent.) > Also, the military is different; it is not really trying to produce anything new, so isn't the same type of work. Yeah, this is a good point. The military is not as "creative" as your run-of-the-mill corporation and, as such, probably doesn't need the coherence.
- anonytrary 7y ago> I'm not sure how I can reconcile it with the reality of modern-day armed forces: where millions of organizational members function extremely efficiently (possibly due to very rigid organizational structures -- which the article doesn't really touch on) Yes, I think it is due to the organization topology. The quadratic case mentioned ((N^2 - N) / 2) assumes a fully-connected network. Also, it would depend on the weight of each connection. Perhaps the "cost" of having two mathematicians communicate together is higher than the "cost" of having two soldiers communicate together.