“The medium is the meaning we want to and will create” is really a special case of “the message is the meaning we want to and will create”.

In cases where “the medium is the message is true” we can say by substituting “the medium is the meaning we want to and will create”. All we did is replace to equivalencies. The substitution makes it harder to understand but we have a new rule.

“The medium is the message” works most of the time but it can be darn tricky to tell what the medium is.

Which is the medium? Is it the web page or is it the internet.

If you select “the web page” as an answer you might come to the conclusion that the web page is becoming the meaning we want to and will create.
Sounds like a perfect proof.

If you select “the internet” as an answer you will say things like “the Internet is becoming the meaning we want to and will create.
Not as elegant a proof.

The medium is the message is a powerful aphorism but for it to apply the medium must have core properties.

The medium is the message only because nature follows paths of least resistance. So we must think in terms of paths when we define the medium.

This is not always easy to do.

Here I go thinking like a quantum packet again.

Hope this made you laugh.

I wrote a blog post (or maybe an essay ?) about 2.5 years ago, with a bit of help from an Open Space maestro, Chris Corrigan, riffing on that famous aphorism.

It is one of my top 5 favourite blog posts … I titled it “The Medium Is The Meaning that we Consume and Create (Together)”. I’d love to know your reaction to it, if you are perhaps interested.

If you ask yourself.. Why did the invention of the press lead to linear man .. you start seeing how linear structures and behaviors had more chances of survival in a world where the communication medium was linear. As an example think of building non-linear course material in the 70s (remember programmed instructions). Very hard to to on a linear/sequential communication medium. Another example is the difficulty non-linear people had to adapt to schools curriculum.

Once the underlying predominant communication medium changes to a network/nodal mode it becomes more efficient to act in a network/nodal way.

Organizations are still thinking in terms of how to take advantage of the new internet technologies. They are missing the big picture. The medium is the message. Build your solutions (command structures/business models/performance appraisals/traning/etc) in a nodal way and you will maximize response times and efficiency. Match the impedances of the systems.

Wirearchy is a nice concept. I like it.

I can assess a systems chances of performing well simply by look at the architecture. And architecture and drawing are always related. Organisational structures are also architectural in nature.

So I do expect to see routing mechanisms and redundant paths in moder org. structures. A few years ago these structures weren’t as feasible because the communication/collaboration tools were not there to support.

Jon’s explanation of the image as a snapshot in time made the lack of redundant paths understandable.

There are multiple layers in a network/organisation. The more layers you get to mimic the predominant communication technololgy the better the system will respond to change. Technically it is a case of systems impedance matching.

So to come back to the original post.. questions such as : Do we still need org charts?.. can be answered by an analysis of underlying communication networks.

When in Rome do like the Romans.. when on the Internet do like the Internet.. become a packet .. and Disperse..lol