3 ms·
Design implies an authoritative, non-iterative mega-deployment. Growing implies an iterative, heterogeneous, observation-laden process with potential for feedba
by contingencies 6y ago
Design implies an authoritative, non-iterative mega-deployment. Growing implies an iterative, heterogeneous, observation-laden process with potential for feedback and adjustment. Where humans are involved, the latter is superior, if you want coherency and efficiency.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThere is no way one could have picked up what you meant from just saying "Design vs. growth". You realize how general those terms are, right? Something that implies to you may not imply to many others. Still your language is imprecise. Can you give examples? > authoritative, non-iterative mega-deployment Like what? Who designs a team like this? What are some concrete examples?
- contingencies 6y agoApologies if it was unclear to you. It's hard to know who reads all the comments here and impossible to address everyone clearly. Many people on HN are involved in building companies which means they have experience with this sort of thing and probably understood without explanation. Who designs a team like this? Bigco HR departments, the military, the government, emergency response NGOs, etc.
- systemvoltage 6y agoThat helps and I agree with the examples you cite. I think then we're arguing about mostly bureaucracy - they work great for stable work that needs to happen on a long term basis. Not agile. But, they have their purpose. If militaries and governments were formed like startups ("growth" as we define here), they would fail to function well. Hierarchy is important characteristic of militaries and big companies. We develop everything from fighter jets to fiscal policy through "designed" organizations.