12740099

Architecture, Regular

Are standardization and advancement in conflict? I have no doubt standardization and creativity are incompatible, at least to some extent, mainly because standardization (almost by definition) reduces the number of variation of operations or systems simultaneously found in a company. Which is whole stage of standardization. If you reduce the variation allowed in the business, then always you would drop some innovation “that could have happened”.

I think in the event that innovation can be viewed in an evolutionary method, mass variant would be created by the community units dedicated to their individual needs and only the best innovations could e stored and scaled to the rest of the company. In the event that all the firms departments are allowed to develop nearby optimal strategies to their problems, certainly a few of these variations will probably be better (at least for the unit) than simply using a standardized software program or solutions company-wide.

To carry on with the major theme, applying any centrally dictated standardised process might reduce the feasible variation by which could be selected from the environment of each organization unit. Believe the far better to view standardization vs .. Development as an inescapable trade-off. Does an enterprise structures that allows a business to increase functional efficiency, simplicity of integration, reduce development costs, duplication of systems, make simpler the purchase of new quests, and sometimes vastly reduced routine service costs well worth some drop in the level of development?

I would argue that is absolutely worthwhile in in most instances. The key is to watch this as an optimum trade-off where you could retain almost all of the innovation whilst also increasing standardization. A great Enterprise Structures that standardizes the types of technologies used over the many (PH/Dot. Net or perhaps Unix/Microsoft) with the best interest of the company.

When you intentionally limit the available options of each specific business units options (such since when Timber]jack decided to use Unix and that immediately removed many otherwise qualified companies) you might reduce the possibility of finding the “perfect solution” for every possible component. Fortunately, most companies can settle on a “very good but not perfect” option with the market leading platforms without having a major drop in creativity.

Agreeing over a standardized profile of systems and procedures, a company can then focus it is resources on bringing fresh functionality for their users without wasting a lot of resources looking to hold with each other a Frankincense combination of a large number of systems, technologies and operations together basically “perfect” in isolation. Ultimately, using more resources about bringing new functionality raises the total value of the THIS department and the rate the department may innovate. Are Standardization from Enterprise Structures and Development in Conflict? By simply Seasonableness