4 ms·

"Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure." This

"Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure." This is a statement about an existing organization and the system they design. It doesn't say you can design a system and then the organization of your choice forms around it. Bezos had to start with a management edict about how the organization is structured (by threat of firing) to get the SOA system he desired at Amazon. https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX https://plus.google.com/+RipRowan/posts/eVeouesvaVX

phamilton 9y ago
> This is a statement about an existing organization and the system they design. It doesn't say you can design a system and then the organization of your choice forms around it. I think both systems and org structure are iterative and evolving. A mismatch between the two will cause friction. Change the org structure and the monolith starts looking like independent services except without the conveniences of microservices (deployment, isolation, independent scaling, etc). Try to change the monolith without changing the org structure and your microservices will eventually turn into tightly coupled RPC hell. Sometimes that friction prompts change in the org, sometimes it prompts change in the code.