Products and organization structure are intertwined
Like most people in the technology industry, I was always fascinated to learn how the world works. The quest for knowledge started with science but expanded to other domains such as business and history. Soon I noticed many intriguing patterns and similarities among all fields. I found that the most insightful tidbits of wisdom are those that are applicable to all fields.
One such gem is Conway's law. Melvin Conway, a mathematician and programmer pioneer, famously stated "Organizations, who design systems, are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations". In simpler terms, the products we create—whether software, cars, books, or reports—are deeply influenced by the relationships and communication patterns among the people working on them.
The effect that structures have on projects is so big that it is often referred to as "mirroring". But what exactly is being mirrored here? The answer is the project's architecture or in other words how the work is being carved up into pieces up to the point that a single person can fully grasp the part assigned to them. This division and the agreed interfaces among the people doing the work usually end up being reflected on the end product.
To illustrate this point, let's pick apart a hypothetical example - let's say we set out to design a smartphone. The key question that will end up having consequences down the line here is "What is a smartphone and how do we break it down to parts?"
Suppose our answer is that a smartphone consists of a battery, a touchscreen, an antenna and an operating system. With this modularization, we’d likely assign four teams to design each component and specify the interfaces where they connect. But here’s the catch: this structure inherently constrains our design. For instance, we’re unlikely to develop a groundbreaking system where the touchscreen and antenna harvest energy from user interactions such as clicks and walking, especially if the teams are siloed or located in different offices. The battery team, in such a setup, will focus on delivering power to predefined endpoints rather than collaborating on a novel energy-sharing system.
On the flip side, choosing a different way to modularize the smartphone might lead to entirely different constraints—and, ultimately, a different final product.
The takeaway? It’s crucial to recognize the unspoken assumptions and underlying structures that shape any creative endeavor. By being intentional about how we organize teams and communicate, we can better align our processes with the outcomes we hope to achieve.
Comments
Post a Comment