A “Service-Oriented Organization” would be able to use that “both / and” aspect to its advantage, I am sure.

You actually said “don’t have to remain static”. As you explained in your comment you mean both vertical and horizontal what I think is relevant.

But it seems that so many people think horizontal is the only solution that I wondered if when writing “dont have” you meant “both” or “horizontal only”. I think that the all horizontal can be as harmful as the all vertical approach.

Whatever, I find your “wirearchy” concept very relevant, furthermore in a kind of organization I hope and pray for : the Service Oriented Organization which would be the organizational equivalent of SOA. I think I’ll explore this idea further in the coming weeks.

What I am more sure I have said is that the work organizations do, and the challenges to which they respond, do not remain static, and that it would be very useful for executives / managers everywhere to be able to understand AND choose when (and why) a centralized hierarchy and command-and-control are the most useful structure and dynamics, and when (and why) a decentralized network and “champion-coordinate-negotiate-and-feedback” are the most useful structure and dynamics.

The point of a hyperlinked digital infrastructure for organizations doing work is that both are possible, and simultaneously, and that some kinds of work are better carried out and managed in a hierarchy, and others in a network (wirearchy), but that it can be “both / and” .. and I believe that managers everywhere will eventually need to be able to identify, create, and (participate in managing effectively) both types of structures. I say “participate in managing effectively” because I think that there’s a lot of negotiation and “self-management” by working groups where the members are working in a network,