Comments on: Organizational Structure vs Product Architecture: Which One Wins?

By: Lori MacVittie

Lori MacVittie — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:38:29 +0000

Ray,

I hadn’t been aware of Conway’s law before so this was very interesting, especially when applied to SOA and BPM. It certainly provides an explanation as to why so many business process re-engineering attempts either (a) take years to implement or (b) fail outright.

Great post, though I’m guessing that re-factoring code is still a lot easier than re-factoring the organization and/or its processes. You can re-factor code with a few clicks of the mouse, you can only re-factor the organization through painful restructuring and,usually, changes in management.

Lori

By: Implications of Conway’s Law on Enterprise Systems « Anthony’s Blog

Sat, 20 Sep 2008 19:23:00 +0000

[...] under: Web 2.0 in the Enterprise, Web Applications | Tags: Conway’s Law | You’ve gotta read this great post from Ray Valdez [...]

By: Ray Valdes

Ray Valdes — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 06:38:27 +0000

Meg, thanks for your comment. Great blog you and your colleagues have, btw.

By: Meg Bear

Meg Bear — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:44:58 +0000

Your question was this: both the organization and the artifact co-evolve to a better place. My question to you: when and where have you seen this happy circumstance?

And my answer is probably going to surprise you. I think that the ORCL Fusion products are actually an example of evolution for the good. Bringing together such large systems as the offerings of Oracle eBusiness Suite, PeopleSoft Enterprise, JD Edwards and Siebel Systems has shown an evolution for the better of both the organization as well as the products.

While still large and reflecting the silos of our organization (we are a large group so this is inevitable) I think people will find that there has been a lot of synergy and growth for all involved as a result of a product attempt such as this.

By: Ray Valdes

Ray Valdes — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:35:09 +0000

Thomas’ comment slipped in. To be clear, the phrase in my comment about “abstruse conceptualizing” was referring to my original post, and not to that of my esteemed colleague

His blog has some great photos of concrete, btw.

By: Ray Valdes

Ray Valdes — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:29:36 +0000

In case one thinks the above article is abstruse conceptualizing, here’s an important real world example of how organizations devolve software systems. According to an article in today’s New York Times, “How Wall Street Lied to Its Computers” (http://tinyurl.com/3e63e9), it appears that software systems for risk management had built-in blind spots, due to a variety of reasons including complexity of financial products, complexity of computer models, and complexity of organizational processes.

By: Thomas Otter

Thomas Otter — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 09:27:47 +0000

Ray,
Super post.
This made my morning, especially this bit.
Not all software systems are malleable. For example, some ERP systems can be viewed as a Procrustean bed upon which the organizational structure is drawn and quartered and reconfigured — although this may require a small army of consultants to perform the surgery. After the operation, the organization ambulates off into the distance, and is unlikely to revert to its original form as long as the ERP harness enveloping it maintains its rigid constraints.

If one looks at ERP vendors, one can draw a pretty accurate organisation chart by looking at the architecture and its silos and integration points. the fault lines follow politics. As politics shift, one can see the changes in the code releases.

At the risk of linking to my other blog ad nauseum, you might enjoy this

http://theotherthomasotter.wordpress.com/2007/06/06/in-defence-of-concrete/