Centric on what?

My client is very much organization centric. I believe some within my client's domain strive to be network centric, but are stalled. Older institutions tend to have more difficulty changing their mode of working. Clay Shirky mentions this tendency in his book, 'Here Comes Everybody'. My client is a long standing entity like religious organizations, greek organizations, fraternal orders etc. Many operate under the, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' mode of thinking. What generally occurs is that 'broke' is defined by the heirarchy, not the regular members. Such is the case with my client.


I have observed times when staff members have suggested changes in a process. These staff are the users of the process. However, their suggestions have been immediately shot down and explained away with 'we've never done it that way' or 'I don't think it will be approved'. However, the same idea is later given thought when a member of the heirarchy suggest it and then it's implemented. While the thought is in limbo the staff member who initially suggested it feels defeated and unheard.

Coordination in the organization is difficult because of the levels of authority that must be involved. Sometimes it seems that each level of the heirarchy tries to think for the level above it, acting like a filter for those to whom they report. No one necessarily wants to be the one who brings an idea that may be deemed 'crazy' or 'unreal'. Often my client has heard comments from the external customers regarding their lack of technological prowess, because my client is considered by some to be on the cusp of technological changes. However, while other departments may exemplify new technical changes, my client is often stymied by those in control over it. Those who already dabble in techical advantages like wikis have less of a problem conceiving of the idea of processes progressing in new technical ways. They are often ready to rid themselves of the technological relics of the past which were great when they were first conceived.


Those who are right brained oriented have less of a problem within my client's organization. They thrive less on creativity and more on being concrete in thought. Hence, they also tend to love what they are doing or at least obtain a great deal of satsifaction from it.

Sharing of information here is like the military way of thinking: On a need to know basis. Often the sharing of information can be seen as even cliquish in nature. The problem with this is that the ones who need to know the information, the ones who would benefit most from access to it, are often the last to hear it and normally hear of it from somewhere else first. Information is often given in portions, instead of fully. Because information is missing it's absence leads to mistakes in how it's processed and forwarded. The funny thing is that in some cases, the missing information is not such that would cause a staff member to adversely affect the system used by having it. (The staff member only has access on an inquiry only basis.) Knowing it would simply complete the picture of the full process. Instead of information being free flowing, staff members must return to the heirarchy and repeated ly ask more questions. This gives the impression of having to play 20 questions, over the course of several visits. A simple remedy would be to have all parties involved meet in one place, at one time, to discuss, decipher and explain the process. Ahh, but that would be too open and transparent, now wouldn't it?


I have to believe that network centric is trying to make its way over the horizon. I have had a faint siting of it...or was a bird?