the form of the org chart

a picture of something is a representation of
a series of measurements, arranged such that
the picture's  gestalt recapitulates
the pictured's gestalt.

an org chart is a picture of an org.

form is function; the subset of relations the org chart 
*chooses* to picture dictate its use to the reader. (
metadata (parergons) colour the nascent gestalt. 
function emerges from form, and action emerges from function
.) the traditional org chart is useful for 
finding managers to complain and suck up to, 
but practically useless otherwise. 

a company directory, with enough columns, is a poor, 
but functional org chart; its gestalt, while occluded 
to the human observer, is perfectly clear to a machine. 
thence, we're free to construct a form for any function, 
bounded only by the measurements in our directory (
& whatever data we can link to it, eg, jira, CODEOWNERS

(somebody give me a problem so i can write some examples)


tabbed interfaces have all the rich spatiality of a book (ie, none). but we can use this to visualize each tab as stacked upon one another; re-used components and forms cut through the pages like mountains layers of 3d topography. stacking reveals cross cutting concerns, zones of code reuse, entanglements, &c. one might splay the pages out in a grid if each page operates on completely different data.

maps of things like "who are invited to which meetings", "who speaks to one another in which meetings", maps of connections, question the departments form, eg, what variety is to be attenuated. departments are terms of the upfront cost of training, developing the particular expertises that are divided by the division of labour. who needs to schedule time to speak to whom? who has so much to discuss they must have a meeting? which costs are seen by whom?

who divided the organization as such, besides history?