"To OR or AND, that's the question."
Craig says: "In other words we need hierarchical structures AND network structures to move forward."
Doc suggests diplomatically and with my favourite metaphor of the month (!): "That makes it a tree of a very short sort, perhaps the height of moss."
I'll read that as a cautious support for the OR camp :)
Now, in contrast to pure tree-structured organising systems like file systems, data bases, etc. - a (organisational) hierarchy has two tasks:
- Organise data (resources, transaction data, information, objects etc.) so they are easily found when needed.
- Structure and direct the process flows.
Keep those task apart and I think the discussion will be easier.
Structuring the process flow is a different story as no real practical alternative for this task exist.
So it would be an AND today, hierarchy AND network structures (or whatever) supporting the views of Craig and Valdis.
But find an alternative method to organise the process flow, then the hierarchy could be superfluous. And OR being the choice.
Funny thing, this is precisely what we're working on, the (main) Thingamy system should be able to deliver the process flow structure. With the anataxonomy method for data organising built in, then both task should be covered by one system (but with two methods).
Then I may be able to say hierarchy OR something else!
More interesting experiments to come, watch this space for such (but after a few weeks of summer slowness I'm afraid :)