A company is a complex organization. Why isn’t its visualization too?

• Read original article here

In my short articles, I often refer to the history of (data) visualization. The reason is simple: with so much still to learn from it, there is no reason to stop digging! The visual representation of organizational structures and processes is no exception.

One of my favorite visualizations in this field is a diagram designed by Daniel McCallum and drawn by George Holt Henshaw in 1855, to represent the organizational plan of the New York and Erie Railroads.

This visualization is indeed a masterpiece, for two reasons — at least: first, the typical abstraction of organizational charts is mediated by the representation of each and every employee along the railroad and by the use of a simple yet powerful visual metaphor like a tree, or a flower according to a version of the story; second, the structure of the diagram reflects both the hierarchical organization of the company — see the relationships between the board of directors and the ‘operative harms’ — and its dynamics, being the branches of the tree also a representation of how information flows from the single stations to the direction, along the rails and the lines of the telegraph. McCallum & Henshaw addressed two important issues of any contemporary organizational representation: how to preserve and represent the relevance — and the dignity — of the individuals and their specific attributes and relationships within the organization, and how to reconcile the often nonlinear dynamics of the business processes with the rigor and stability of roles and functions. Despite good historical examples like the one introduced here, the complexity, the liveliness and the humanity of the ‘organizational body’ remain largely invisible in most companies, with the above-mentioned issues still unresolved.

Both at the DensityDesign Research Lab (Politecnico di Milano) and the Center for Design (Northeastern University) I had the chance to work with several organizations trying to map and visualize their processes and the ‘social’ relationships behind them, providing to different functions — from innovation to training and human resources management — visual tools that helped them navigate the complexity of organizational systems: custom solutions mostly, for clients that looked like pioneers in their approach to the ‘human capital’. Times seem ripe for a radical change in the way data and information about people’s roles, activities, skills and expertise are represented, paving the way for a new generation of (visual) tools — with an eye on the past.