I like the word “switch” and “hybrid” and “blended”

2.0 is an approach, a way of being, but it's not a replacement for the purpose, we still need hierarchy…instead they need to co-exist, and work complementarily.

The beauty is that sometimes it can re-tune the form eg. more autonomy and self-managing, more environmentally conscious, not all about profits (this will be the day)

As you have mentioned in other posts we form organisations to deal with Coase's “transaction costs” meme, as Clay Shirky puts it
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/book-re…

“…there's a huge transaction cost in simply finding who’s available, what they offer, making some kind of deal. And so what firms do, in Coase’s answer, is they lower transactions costs for group effort. And that gives them an economic advantage over markets in certain situations.”

“…there’s a Coasean ceiling: a point past which, if a firm grows too large, it just breaks down.”

Now this is where the “switch” or the concept of a flatter enterprise (autonomy), horizontal/ad-hoc collaboration to cope with situations makes it more adaptive and resilient (agile)

Clay Shirky alludes to this:

“…there’s also a Coasean floor. Which is to say, there’s a set of group activities that would create some value but it isn’t worth forming an institution to create.”

You have posted elsewhere on all these points.

But I am interested in the idea of a role-based organisation.

Here are my thoughts:

http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/04/24/we-…

http://libraryclips.blogsome.com/2009/11/23/wor…