Decades ago, in 1968, a computer scientist Melvin Conway observed the impact that an organization’s communication structure had on its output, and wrote a thesis titled “How Do Committees Invent” where he posited that any “organization that designs a system will inevitably produce a design whose structure is a copy of the communication structure of the organization”.((Conway, Melvin E. (1968). How Do Communities Invent. [F.D Thompson Publications, Inc.]))
Conway’s Law In Action
Over the years, this observation has been tested in several instances, quoted in several books and works, and has been unanimously dubbed “Conway’s Law”. And despite his thesis being initially rejected by the Harvard Business Review, the reason given that he hadn’t successfully proved his hypothesis, Conway’s work remained relevant.
As a compliment to Conway’s Law, Nigel Bevan’s research in 1999 discovered that end-users found company websites “frustrating to use”. Being a UX expert himself, he submitted that the web navigation, page design, and content structure of the webpage reflected the internal concerns of the company rather than meeting the needs of end-users.((Watts, Stephen. June 2 2020. “Conway’s Law in 2020: A Primer” BMC Blogs. September 30 2020. https://www.bmc.com/blogs/conways-law/))
A Look at the Codebase
Recently, a team of researchers at Harvard Business School embarked on a study to explore the similarities between a product and its organizational structure in a bid to test Conway’s observation. The study sampled and analyzed different codebases of software that served similar functions, but had different team structures.
The study would eventually find that codebases produced in ”loosely-coupled” communication systems, like open source software projects, were more modular and flexible; teams whose communication structures were ”tightly-coupled” created rigid monolithic codebases.((Baldwin, Carliss Y; Maccormack Alan D. (2008). Exploring The Duality Between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis))
As it turned out, the findings of the research were consistent with Conway’s observation, and the link of an organization’s structure to its product output was established. The structure of a software product mimics the structure of the organization that produces the software.
Before this study, a few organizations, mainly software-based, had already begun to adapt development systems that structured their organization effectively around multiple small teams. However, more organizations—with products outside the software market—have begun to rethink and remodel their structures to actualize optimal product designs.
For this, most have adopted a development practice known as the Agile structure.
Agile Development Structure, a Valid Counter-Move
The Agile development structure separates an organization into cross-functional and self-organizing feature teams that can be assigned a division of the organization’s product so that they can iteratively produce, test, refine, and deliver high-quality products in a cost-effective and timely manner to satisfy the needs of customers.
The idea that smaller feature teams are more creative, flexible, and efficient for production over a rigid monolithic system is what is widely sold, and organizations like Amazon and Netflix can be counted as evidence of the success of an Agile structure. The belief is that if small feature teams are allowed to own the services they offer throughout its process, they would be able to do so at an effective rate resulting in continuous improvements, and delivering the best possible outcomes.
Despite its acclaimed success in effecting efficient production, there are other concerns about Agile development structures that have to do with how it affects the system itself.
The Team or the Organization
In a Forbes article published in 2017, detractors of Conway’s Law as a way to spur innovation, noted that “once you entrench small teams this way, their respect and loyalty for that team often comes to outweigh their allegiance to the organization as a whole”. An organization with these boundaries could become “pathological over time, impeding communication and collaboration”.((Woods, Dan. August 15 2017. “How Platforms Are Neutralizing Conway’s Law”. Forbes. September 30 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danwoods/2017/08/15/how-platforms-are-neautralizing-conways-law))
The need for a general goal for an organization cannot be overemphasized. This goal is fostered through teamwork and loyalty, but can also be compromised when this loyalty is only exclusive to a single team and doesn’t extend to the entire organization. More so, according to Conway’s Law, when doubt of security or loyalty comes into question, it will certainly be reflected in the product output.
Therefore, organizations that adopt an Agile structure should endeavor to effect communication across teams no matter the scale of their function to encourage cooperation, solidarity, and transparency.
Organizations can also create platforms to enable collaboration between teams, as this will break down communication barriers without affecting the agility of the teams. According to Forbes, it could serve as a neutral zone where everyone can come and express themselves with bare honesty, forming a bond that breaks down any communication barriers. Josh McKenty, a VP at Pivotal explains that “Platforms can allow businesses to cultivate a sense of ‘we are all in this together‘, in which everyone is respected and treated with mutual regard, and can clean up each other’s messes—regardless of whether they created the mess in the first place”.((ibid))
Evaluate Your Organization and Its Mindset
Agile structures benefit an organization’s executives, development teams, and customers, however, the same benefits are not assured for the end-users.((Alexander, Moria. June 19 2020. “Agile Project Management: 12 Key principles, 4 big hurdles”. CIO. October 2 2020. https://cio.com/article/3156998/agile-project-management-a-beginners-guide/)) Organizations however can have better development processes, where transparency is assured and waste is minimal. Agile structures also help organizations meet their objectives at the desired time, with products swiftly deployed leading to the satisfaction of stakeholders. On that note, however, there are major possibilities of significant defects being missed because the teams are trying to test products too quickly. Therefore, caution should be taken on that aspect, and teams should never be allowed to become more time-conscious than outcome-driven.
Currently, more organizations are adopting agility, however, that doesn’t make it the right choice for all. Some project teams might be leaning more to agility, but a decision cannot be made until the whole organization is on board with the idea. Before deciding on Conway’s Law, it is advisable to evaluate your organization before ensuring that an Agile structure is a right fit for your organization’s mindset.
