Good riff. More exploration on the big assumptions around network attributes is a good idea. My experience suggests that networks can be both functional and dysfunctional just like other structures, sloppy networks can be just as destructive as hierarchies. But as you point out, networks can often "route around" problems and be more fluid in design improvements. Also networks don't automatically change people, for example, markets can be very short-term view and some old-boy networks just hide authority and accountability. Finally, I would like to push on the norm that networks are often characterized as a "letting go of control" which is not good for network champions and strategists. I also don't think it is accurate, many networks are very effective in control. The issue is that control comes form protocols for use, rather than management. Think how controlling monetary networks, DOD security networks, or even social networks and norms can be. The challenge is designing network with purpose, diversity, typography, functionality and protocols for use that can create the desired network throughput.

I am looking forward to digging into more of your work. Thanks for pushing the concepts.