Talk:Command and control (management)

Regarding the PRINCE2 reference

There was reference to 'Prince II' which I have changed to the correct name. That got me thinking about what the point of referring to PRINCE2 was in this article. One does not need to use command and control in the delivery phase of PRINCE2, other than to say what the expectations are (via product descriptions). Meanwhile, what was 'agile' has become more and more rigid, with formal qualifications, strict team structures and roles, management information reporting. It has been evolved into a command and control process. Such a shame. I mention this since this transformation warrants going into the article but I am unsure how to go about it. Essentially, something like "command and control is so pervasive to an organisational culture that it has to turn the most agile and people-focussed methods into itself. Flexibility is imposed, monitored, measured and reported on to prove it is happening. Rewards from collaborative working are imposed in a 'the beatings will continue until morale improves' punishment approach." PRINCE2 itself was not intended to be a command and control tool but as a way of ensuring everyone knew what they were supposed to be working on and decisions were evidence-based with an audit trail and people could be left to get on with doing their part. Then the command and control environments went and used PRINCE2 as a stick to beat everyone with instead of a collection of processes that can help. SandJ-on-WP (talk) 06:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)