Apologies up front for chirping away, yet again, on one of my favourite themes - the stupidity of tree structures.
But as things goes, tree structures are too ubiquitous, and too faulty to be left alone. In my humble view.
Organisations, how they work, how efficient (or not) they are, how we organise and find stuff, how we build knowledge and other details of daily life. Tree structures.
And as long as that is the reality, I'll keep chirping.
Try this for fun:
Scoot over to your colleagues computer, ask him to describe a document he wrote two months ago.
You find the file on his hard disk. Time yourself.
Ask the next six year old you meet to describe a plant she knows.
Use the description to find it in the taxonomy of plants. Time yourself.
If you work in a big organisation, arm yourself with the organisational chart and access to the company web site.
Now find a colleague who is a good speaker, knows Python and speaks Greek. Time yourself.
Not very scientific, solely some indications that tree structures are less than perfect when used to find stuff, kind of the essence of organising stuff one would think.
Carl Linnaeus categorised plants by their number and arrangement of the reproductive organs. Hardly what comes natural to the above six year old when she wants to describe the dandelion at hand. Ditto for me.
And does the number and arrangement of reproductive organs render much useful "knowledge"? Well...
Did I mention the "knowledge" that is included in the title "Consultant Strategy & Change Business Consulting Services"? Does the fellow speak Italian?
Can I but conclude that tree structures are pretty useless when we want to find things and rather meagre on the knowledge bearer side?
Only thing they seem to be good at: Delivering rankings, be the power structure.
No good at the intended use, really great as a side effect supplier. Oh, great.
Chop'em down now.