Not News
When Does Coordination Require Centralization?
The subtitle says it all:
Contrary to expectations, decentralization might be the best strategy when the need for coordination among divisions is paramount
That's right. Three "experts" from the top business school in the country have spent (probably copious amounts of) time and money to demonstrate the bloody fucking obvious.
"This paper adds to the body of thought that suggests that decentralization is often the best thing a firm can do, in keeping with the idea that decisions should be made by the people with the most pertinent information. It suggests also that decentralization may be significantly more robust than was previously thought."
How was it ever in any way counterintuitive that "decisions should be made by the people with the most pertinent information"? Is it really a new thing that coordination works better when separate decision-makers with direct knowledge of their own areas share information amongst themselves, then make their decisions based on the information they consider relevant, instead of deferring the responsibility of decision to a central authority who doesn't and can't have access to all of the relevant information for each and every area? This is why free exchange works, and managed (socialist or mixed) economies don't.
Not that I'm complaining that further proofs have been added to the list of arguments supported decentralization, but the fact that this is necessary really saddens me.
The subtitle says it all:
Contrary to expectations, decentralization might be the best strategy when the need for coordination among divisions is paramount
That's right. Three "experts" from the top business school in the country have spent (probably copious amounts of) time and money to demonstrate the bloody fucking obvious.
"This paper adds to the body of thought that suggests that decentralization is often the best thing a firm can do, in keeping with the idea that decisions should be made by the people with the most pertinent information. It suggests also that decentralization may be significantly more robust than was previously thought."
How was it ever in any way counterintuitive that "decisions should be made by the people with the most pertinent information"? Is it really a new thing that coordination works better when separate decision-makers with direct knowledge of their own areas share information amongst themselves, then make their decisions based on the information they consider relevant, instead of deferring the responsibility of decision to a central authority who doesn't and can't have access to all of the relevant information for each and every area? This is why free exchange works, and managed (socialist or mixed) economies don't.
Not that I'm complaining that further proofs have been added to the list of arguments supported decentralization, but the fact that this is necessary really saddens me.