Interesting! Both can be true, also, other systems, such as the USA’s Old Republic, solved some of the short comings of both through deliberate redundancy, in so far as there was silos, each silo had several twins, each linked to each other — like they were with everyone else — because they were in the same system, but each was its own internal world, with very little common sourcing in personnel (at least in impactful ways), and each was fully resourced
Great piece. For better or worse, silos also influenced modern architecture. They were among the industrial structures that Le Corbusier praised as "the magnificent first fruits of the modern age."
I did not know that! Thank you! I was surprised silos were invented so "late," as it were. I was also delighted how universities played a role. Le Corbusier is a complicated character (as anyone who reads James Scott knows well) but I am glad to know he praised silos.
I appreciate this take on academic silos. In addition to the safeguard in relations to AI, it’s also deeply relevant to the pushes for interdisciplinarity stemming from budget cuts rather than actual intellectual interest/investment “across silos.”
This is great. This helps me frame some things I've been seeing recently. In some universities with very good philosophy departments, there has been a lot of pressure from deans and admin to push the philosophy department to "integrate" more with the other humanities. The other humanities departments see the philosophy department as elitist and snooty, locked up in their silos. But perhaps one way to defend the philosophers is to say that, well, they're afraid of rot if they open up. The other humanities are not necessarily a picture of health, and in any case, the philosophers have a rigorous discipline and a long-developed tradition and they're not going to risk that for some trendy topics. (I'm massively generalizing and sketching here. The details in real universities will vary a lot case to case.)
What a lovely metaphor - now I know, silos play a more important role in modern life that I hadn't thought of before. The history lesson was great. And what a punchline: 'Societies that cannot preserve their knowledge face starvation. Hunger follows decay.'
Maybe you call such attempts destruction vs preservation. The semantic difference depends on the person making the distinction, isn't it? Hunger follows decay seems more certain, though.
In information security I need silos all the time - but the appropriate term is different - compartment. Lets say I have sensitive health personal data - I can NOT comingle that data with other data. Ditto a lot of personal data (Look up GDPR if you want books full of regulations and penalties). Ditto financial data or corporate financial data that reveals how a company is doing. .....
Yes, compartmentalization of data hinders operations - but it also allows survival.
The idiots who what flat access don't understand the consequences of compromise.
This was a fascinating read. I worked in higher education for 20 years, much of it at a deeply siloed institution. So much so that a consultant told us he’d never seen anything like it. Morale was incredibly low. Departments were territorial, collaboration was rare, and people clung tightly to the way things had always been done. Progress was almost impossible.
I completely understand that in order to have true depth of knowledge, there has to be some degree of siloing to accumulate and refine that expertise. But the question becomes: when does that depth turn into a mechanism for preserving power or resisting innovation? How siloed is something before it becomes dysfunctional rather than helpful?
I guess I would say what do you mean by “deeply siloed” and were you inside a silo? Most people inside silos should be and are very happy. If they are not it is their problem, not the silo. They should leave, not tear down silos, but that seems to be the tendency…
I’m not suggesting we tear down silos. I understand their importance in protecting and preserving knowledge. But like a grain silo, if they aren’t properly built or maintained, the contents can still spoil.
The structure only works if it truly serves its purpose. Also, the perspective from within a silo can vary greatly depending on where you stand whether at the top or further down in the system.
So, when people express dissatisfaction, I think it’s worth considering that there may be aspects of the system that need attention.
Love this perspective. I will never look at a silo (real or organizational) the same way again. Protecting wisdom in the age of AI is more important than ever.
Interesting! Both can be true, also, other systems, such as the USA’s Old Republic, solved some of the short comings of both through deliberate redundancy, in so far as there was silos, each silo had several twins, each linked to each other — like they were with everyone else — because they were in the same system, but each was its own internal world, with very little common sourcing in personnel (at least in impactful ways), and each was fully resourced
Great piece. For better or worse, silos also influenced modern architecture. They were among the industrial structures that Le Corbusier praised as "the magnificent first fruits of the modern age."
I did not know that! Thank you! I was surprised silos were invented so "late," as it were. I was also delighted how universities played a role. Le Corbusier is a complicated character (as anyone who reads James Scott knows well) but I am glad to know he praised silos.
I appreciate this take on academic silos. In addition to the safeguard in relations to AI, it’s also deeply relevant to the pushes for interdisciplinarity stemming from budget cuts rather than actual intellectual interest/investment “across silos.”
This is great. This helps me frame some things I've been seeing recently. In some universities with very good philosophy departments, there has been a lot of pressure from deans and admin to push the philosophy department to "integrate" more with the other humanities. The other humanities departments see the philosophy department as elitist and snooty, locked up in their silos. But perhaps one way to defend the philosophers is to say that, well, they're afraid of rot if they open up. The other humanities are not necessarily a picture of health, and in any case, the philosophers have a rigorous discipline and a long-developed tradition and they're not going to risk that for some trendy topics. (I'm massively generalizing and sketching here. The details in real universities will vary a lot case to case.)
What a lovely metaphor - now I know, silos play a more important role in modern life that I hadn't thought of before. The history lesson was great. And what a punchline: 'Societies that cannot preserve their knowledge face starvation. Hunger follows decay.'
I'm unsure, though, how to distinguish what you've in mind vs echo chambers & misinformation. I try to deal with this related dilemna in https://rajeshachanta.substack.com/p/the-humpty-dumpty-lineage.
Maybe you call such attempts destruction vs preservation. The semantic difference depends on the person making the distinction, isn't it? Hunger follows decay seems more certain, though.
I love this — there are ways that language never stays in its silos does it. Meaning escapes and bleeds or collaborates with words in other silos.
In information security I need silos all the time - but the appropriate term is different - compartment. Lets say I have sensitive health personal data - I can NOT comingle that data with other data. Ditto a lot of personal data (Look up GDPR if you want books full of regulations and penalties). Ditto financial data or corporate financial data that reveals how a company is doing. .....
Yes, compartmentalization of data hinders operations - but it also allows survival.
The idiots who what flat access don't understand the consequences of compromise.
This was a fascinating read. I worked in higher education for 20 years, much of it at a deeply siloed institution. So much so that a consultant told us he’d never seen anything like it. Morale was incredibly low. Departments were territorial, collaboration was rare, and people clung tightly to the way things had always been done. Progress was almost impossible.
I completely understand that in order to have true depth of knowledge, there has to be some degree of siloing to accumulate and refine that expertise. But the question becomes: when does that depth turn into a mechanism for preserving power or resisting innovation? How siloed is something before it becomes dysfunctional rather than helpful?
I guess I would say what do you mean by “deeply siloed” and were you inside a silo? Most people inside silos should be and are very happy. If they are not it is their problem, not the silo. They should leave, not tear down silos, but that seems to be the tendency…
I’m not suggesting we tear down silos. I understand their importance in protecting and preserving knowledge. But like a grain silo, if they aren’t properly built or maintained, the contents can still spoil.
The structure only works if it truly serves its purpose. Also, the perspective from within a silo can vary greatly depending on where you stand whether at the top or further down in the system.
So, when people express dissatisfaction, I think it’s worth considering that there may be aspects of the system that need attention.
I have found the biggest complainers about silos have the least investment in cutting edge knowledge. That is what we need right now.
Love this perspective. I will never look at a silo (real or organizational) the same way again. Protecting wisdom in the age of AI is more important than ever.