Comments on: Thoughts On Software Architecture and Corporate Structure

By: Imran Sobh

Imran Sobh — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 01:58:05 +0000

I really like this post, and there are some good links to other topics–just read the Conway’s Law Wikipedia entry. I have always been very much of the opinion that well designed products come from well designed companies, so its good to hear the thought validated, at least in terms of software structure

Computing analogies also interest me since cognitive psychologist often refer to the architecture of a computer as an analogy for the brain (short term memory = RAM, long term memory = HDD, executive functions = processor, etc… ). Also, like I mentioned before, early organization management theorists looked at organizations as machines with replaceable “parts” instead of people, which I think makes it easier to dehumanize employees.

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:15:38 +0000

@MT: Thanks for the link; I think I may have come across that at some point in the past, but the Wikipedia article was a good refresher.

I wonder if there are corollaries here for companies that don’t produce software … how does their end product (or service) reflect the structure/culture that produced it.

By: MT Heart

MT Heart — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 07:48:53 +0000

Interesting. I’m surprised to see no mention of Conway’s Law though – “Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.”

It is a consequence of the fact that two software modules A and B cannot interface correctly with each other unless the designer and implementer of A communicates with the designer and implementer of B. Thus the interface structure of a software system necessarily will show a congruence with the social structure of the organization that produced it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway’s_Law

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 20:32:10 +0000

@TM: Thanks for the pointer to this resource. Great principles to keep in mind when doing any kind of design…

By: TM

TM — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:37:11 +0000

In reference to your statement “it really makes me wonder if there are design tenets that are applicable irrespective of domain? For example, taking a tip from the oldest and IMHO //best designer ever// — nature —” I’ve got a suggestion for you. Go to
http://www.biomimicryinstitute.org/about-us/biomimicry-a-tool-for-innovation.html.
About half way down the page is a butterfly image that says “Life’s Principles.” This is essentially a concept map of nature’s design principles and it touches on some of the concepts that you mentioned in your original post. It’s a tool that we use with our clients to get them thinking about systems, sustainability and biomimetic design. Enjoy!

By: the eye of ria » Blog Archive » 对软件架构和企业组织结构的思考

the eye of ria » Blog Archive » 对软件架构和企业组织结构的思考 — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:20:36 +0000

[...] Greenblog最近在一篇博客里分析了软件架构与高效的组织结构在原则上的相似性，以之回答下面的问题： [...]

By: andyskipper.com - freelance web developer in london

andyskipper.com - freelance web developer in london — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:44:47 +0000

[...] A very interesting read from Dan Greenblatt: Thoughts On Software Architecture and Corporate Structure [...]

By: Dan

Dan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:28:27 +0000

Hi EMC2 – Thanks for the reference (Wikipedia article was a great primer). Yes, I suppose that the notion of ‘universal design tenets’ are indeed what the Systems Thinking methodology attempts to define. I think there is also something very interesting about then applying specific elements/lessons/paradigms of each domains to one another to see what works, what doesn’t, etc.

By: EMC2

EMC2 — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 15:13:48 +0000

Isnt’s this System Thinking ?

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 18:00:17 +0000

Hi Jennifer -

Thanks for the comments – I love your idea of leveraging the design of technological or biological systems to solve problems of civil engineering; it really makes me wonder if there are design tenets that are applicable irrespective of domain? For example, taking a tip from the oldest and IMHO //best designer ever// — nature — it should be fairly obvious that the waterfall model of development is fundamentally flawed in comparison to more rapid iterative models (or, in the case of evolution, not so rapid

As you point out, I’m hoping that the sea change in our collective notions of use (consumption) and conservation will catalyze civic designs that are significantly more forward-looking that that of the past couple generations. In addition to changes in the way we do design, maybe it’s also a matter of being more proactive than reactive in terms of maintence?

So, in the example of the water supply, in addition to designing it modularly with the potential for easily making future changes, rather than saying “we’ll fix our water supply when we experience a drought or contamination,” we should be constantly optimizing it even if it’s not truly ‘broken’ ?

I know very little about civic design / planning … any suggestions on good places to start?

Lots to think about here …