That’s a great line. But it does simplify to a single axis. Maybe even Steve Jobs was are wired to see the most simple solution to a problem.
Or maybe it’s just a joke
Thank you. I was looking at it through the lens of social constructionism, but in a wider context, I agree with you. It seems to me that unscrupulous people use this idea for their own ends
I used to be a musician and as i worked in tech, I set up my own website. Everyone else thought i was crazy, MySpace was here to stay - that was the standard that everyone used, anything else was a waste of effort.
Because platforms (like MySpace) can disappear almost overnight, I would always recommend setting up a blog on a domain that you own and control. Mine is https://markgreville.ie and i have been on the front page of HackerNews a couple of times. I have had lot of people reach out to me over the years, including some very famous tech luminaries (people who’s books i read from cover to cover as i was learning to be a programmer, then architect, then leader). I have also found a lot of great talent through it.
My struggle initially was worrying that i would seem pompous for writing publicly, and that no-one would find any of it interesting. However, most of my friends ignored it, and i found a community on HN that was my tribe instead.
If you are reading this and haven’t blogged before
1. Register a domain now
2. Set up a simple site (Wordpress will do for now, don't over think this bit)
3. Write about something you have done, or something you are passionate about
4. Have a trusted person read it for you and take feedback
5. Edit, publish, and post on HN
6. Start the next post
The well cited “Conways Law” in technology falls into this category. I can barely remember a week going past in the last 3 years without someone quoting it. As part of my PhD research, I’ve read the paper deeply, and the idea that it proves the companies ship their organisational structures is such a misuse of the research. I wonder how many people have ever read the original
> and the idea that it proves the companies ship their organisational structures is such a misuse of the research. I wonder how many people have ever read the original
Well, it does say in its conclusion: "The basic thesis of this article is that organizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." [0]
I actually cited Conway's law to convince a senior decision maker that his organisation was badly structured. Briefly, a civil service organisation acquired systems for various users in a large customer organisation. The systems were rarely technically compatible although were often doing very similar things. This complicated technical interoperability and increased through life costs (e.g. because they had separate support contracts that duplicated basic functions).
The incompatibilities often resulted because the systems had separately written user requirements (e.g. using different terms for the same things, describing common processes in different ways). The requirements were incompatible because they were written by independent acquisition teams. The acquisition teams were independent because they reported to and were 'owned' by different parts of the overall customer organisation. Recognising this fact allowed the senior guy to request that the various customer teams established consistent terminology, processes and support contracts. In other words, going for coherence by design rather than (expensively) retrofitting it.
I like the site, but because you only support arxiv, you are issuing out on lots of great research. You should consider supporting doi, i tried to load one of my papers (not on arxiv) and its rejected - now im sad!
I think the best part of my journey was the unpredictable nature of it.
And having a laugh along the way