“Viewing learning and knowledge as network phenomena alters much of how we have experienced knowledge in the last century. Networks are adaptive, fluid, and readily scale in size and scope. A hierarchy imposes structure, while networks reflect structure” (G. Siemens, Knowing Knowledge (2006), Sec.2,vii)
“Connectivism also addresses the challenges that many corporations face in knowledge management activities. Knowledge that resides in a database needs to be connected with the right people in the right context in order to be classified as learning. Behaviorism, cognitivism, and constructivism do not attempt to address the challenges of organizational knowledge and transference.” (Siemens, 2004)
“A major shift in the ways activities are planned and managed is occurring in many spheres of human activity, from command-and-control to coordinate-and-channel. When customers have more power and employees want to communicate and be heard, the dynamics have to change.
A new organizing principle is emerging, called Wirearchy. The working definition of wirearchy is:
a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on information, knowledge, trust and credibility, enabled by interconnected people and technology” (What is wirearchy)
Aaron Silvers draws a similar conclusion:
If you replaced the org chart […] with a network analysis chart, you’d have a living, dynamic graph of what your org is, and you can evaluate, with different tools that look for different attributes, what your org is learning, how they’re performing and what new and innovative trends you should be paying attention to. Your Org Chart is one thing; the Wisdom of the Crowds is another thing; What the Swarm Does might be something else entirely.