5 ms·

Nice, interesting article. But I would stress less that "Seeing Like a State" -- that is a top-down, global solution -- was not the problem. The problem was t

by jmull 5y ago

Nice, interesting article. But I would stress less that "Seeing Like a State" -- that is a top-down, global solution -- was not the problem. The problem was that "Tim" didn't really understand the problem he was trying to solve (well, none of us truly understand very much at all, but he didn't understand it better than many of the teams associated with the individual services). "Tim"'s proposal probably solved some problems but created various other problems. The best solution, though, (IMO) isn't that Tim should be smarted and better informed than everyone else combined, nor that every team should continue to create an independent solution. Instead "Tim" could propose a solution, and the 100 micro service teams would be tasked with responding constructively. Iterations would ensue. You still really, really need "Tim", though, because multiple teams, even sincere and proficient ones, will not arrive at a coherent solution without leadership/direction. > A global solution, by necessity, has to ignore local conditions. That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions.

chasil 5y ago
The scenario reminds me of this story: https://mwl.io/archives/605 https://mwl.io/archives/605
bentcorner 5y ago
Makes sense. In my work I've seen this when trying to get developers on my team using certain patterns, styles, types, conventions, or tools (or the inverse - deprecating them). Suggestions are usually well grounded (e.g., "let's migrate to this `std` class instead of this old home-rolled wrapper), but sometimes there's some nuance to how something is currently done and deep discussion of the proposal can work through these bits.
GiorgioG 5y ago
> A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. Not if standardization is the priority.
- CogitoCogito 5y ago
  > Not if standardization is the priority. Is standardization always a priority?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
sokoloff 5y ago
That depends a lot on the cardinality of the set of Tims. If there’s one Tim per team, you’ll have 100 Tims proposing different global improvements and 100 teams needing to respond intelligently to those suggestions.
- vlovich123 5y ago
  That's when the business needs to assign one Tim, or a team of Tims as dictator(s). Everyone else can provide feedback but isn't the decision maker.
  - canalmighty 5y ago
    A Timtactorship
phkahler 5y ago
>> > A global solution, by necessity, has to ignore local conditions. >> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. So lets rephrase that. A global solution that ignores local conditions will have problems and will likely fail.
hosh 5y ago
> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. Past a certain level of complexity, that's no longer true. _Seeing Like a State_ is a great introduction to this, but I think Carol Sanford's work goes much more into detail. The main thing with the high-modernist view that James Scott was critiquing is that it comes from what Sanford would call the Machine World View. This is where the entire system can be understood by how all of its parts interact. This view breaks down at a certain level of complexity, of which James Scott's book is rife with examples. Sanford then proposes a worldview she calls the Living Systems World View. Such a system is capable of self-healing and regenerating (such as ecologies, watersheds, communities, polities), and changing on its own. In such a system, you don't affect changes by using direct actions like you do with machines. You use indirect actions. Kubernetes is a great example. If you're trying to map how everything work together, it can become very complex. I've met smart people who have trouble grasping just how Horizontal Pod Autoscaling works, let alone understand its operational characteristics in live environments. Furthermore, it can be disconcerting to be troubleshooting something and then have the HPA reverse changes you are trying to make ... if you are viewing this through the Machine World View. But viewed through Living Systems World View, it bears many similarities to cultivating a garden. Every living thing is going to grow on its own, and you cannot control for every single variable or conditions. For similar ideas (which I won't go into detail), there is Christopher Alexander's ideas on Living Architecture. He is a building architect that greatly influenced how people think about Object Oriented Programming (http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee.html http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee.html) and Human-Computer Interface design (what the startup world uses to great affect in product design). Another is the Cynefin framework (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework). Cynefin identifies different domains -- Simple, Complicated, Complex, and Chaos. Engineers are used to working in the Complicated domain, but when the level of complexity phase-shifts into the Complex domain, the strategies and ways of problem-solving that engineers are used to, will no longer work. This includes clinging to the idea that for any given problem, there is a global solution which will satisfy all local conditions.
- hosh 5y ago
  Oh yeah, and I just remembered -- Go. It's a great way of training strategic analysis and making decisions. After moving past the basis, what one explores are global vs. local, influence vs. territory, discerning urgent vs. big moves, direction of play, and so forth. It is theoretically a perfect-information game, but it is sufficiently complex enough for humans that it simulates the fog of war and having to make decisions in face of uncertainty.
ryukoposting 5y ago
Through enough iteration, all problems can be solved. But, how many iterations will be required to reach a solution that works for everyone? At that point, is there a solid business case for the project?
darkerside 5y ago
I think the key difference is whether the local teams have the choice to opt out or not, and my belief is that they should. If they can, they can solve their own problem if the global solution doesn't work. If the global solution wants to keep them as consumers, they must adapt. If they can't leave, the global team will almost certainly stop responding to their needs over time. Like communism, a global solution is terrific in theory, but human behavior causes it to break down in practice. Caveat, for small enough problems, good enough solutions, and charismatic enough leaders, global solutions can work. But they all break eventually.
whakim 5y ago
> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. In theory, yes. But in practice, no (and this is the author's point, I think). In theory, the more "local conditions" you have to account for, the more exponentially complex your "global solution" becomes. (This is the "state" metaphor.) In practice, you can't build that impossibly complex system (and it might not be desirable, anyways!) - so you're likely to try to change local practices in service of a more streamlined global solution. The more you do that, the farther away you move from respecting local conditions.

by jmull 5y ago

chasil 5y ago

The scenario reminds me of this story: https://mwl.io/archives/605 https://mwl.io/archives/605

bentcorner 5y ago

Makes sense. In my work I've seen this when trying to get developers on my team using certain patterns, styles, types, conventions, or tools (or the inverse - deprecating them). Suggestions are usually well grounded (e.g., "let's migrate to this `std` class instead of this old home-rolled wrapper), but sometimes there's some nuance to how something is currently done and deep discussion of the proposal can work through these bits.

GiorgioG 5y ago

> A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. Not if standardization is the priority.

CogitoCogito 5y ago
> Not if standardization is the priority. Is standardization always a priority?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

sokoloff 5y ago

That depends a lot on the cardinality of the set of Tims. If there’s one Tim per team, you’ll have 100 Tims proposing different global improvements and 100 teams needing to respond intelligently to those suggestions.

vlovich123 5y ago
That's when the business needs to assign one Tim, or a team of Tims as dictator(s). Everyone else can provide feedback but isn't the decision maker.
- canalmighty 5y ago
  A Timtactorship

phkahler 5y ago

>> > A global solution, by necessity, has to ignore local conditions. >> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. So lets rephrase that. A global solution that ignores local conditions will have problems and will likely fail.

hosh 5y ago

> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. Past a certain level of complexity, that's no longer true. _Seeing Like a State_ is a great introduction to this, but I think Carol Sanford's work goes much more into detail. The main thing with the high-modernist view that James Scott was critiquing is that it comes from what Sanford would call the Machine World View. This is where the entire system can be understood by how all of its parts interact. This view breaks down at a certain level of complexity, of which James Scott's book is rife with examples. Sanford then proposes a worldview she calls the Living Systems World View. Such a system is capable of self-healing and regenerating (such as ecologies, watersheds, communities, polities), and changing on its own. In such a system, you don't affect changes by using direct actions like you do with machines. You use indirect actions. Kubernetes is a great example. If you're trying to map how everything work together, it can become very complex. I've met smart people who have trouble grasping just how Horizontal Pod Autoscaling works, let alone understand its operational characteristics in live environments. Furthermore, it can be disconcerting to be troubleshooting something and then have the HPA reverse changes you are trying to make ... if you are viewing this through the Machine World View. But viewed through Living Systems World View, it bears many similarities to cultivating a garden. Every living thing is going to grow on its own, and you cannot control for every single variable or conditions. For similar ideas (which I won't go into detail), there is Christopher Alexander's ideas on Living Architecture. He is a building architect that greatly influenced how people think about Object Oriented Programming (http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee.html http://www.patternlanguage.com/archive/ieee.html) and Human-Computer Interface design (what the startup world uses to great affect in product design). Another is the Cynefin framework (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin_framework). Cynefin identifies different domains -- Simple, Complicated, Complex, and Chaos. Engineers are used to working in the Complicated domain, but when the level of complexity phase-shifts into the Complex domain, the strategies and ways of problem-solving that engineers are used to, will no longer work. This includes clinging to the idea that for any given problem, there is a global solution which will satisfy all local conditions.

hosh 5y ago
Oh yeah, and I just remembered -- Go. It's a great way of training strategic analysis and making decisions. After moving past the basis, what one explores are global vs. local, influence vs. territory, discerning urgent vs. big moves, direction of play, and so forth. It is theoretically a perfect-information game, but it is sufficiently complex enough for humans that it simulates the fog of war and having to make decisions in face of uncertainty.

ryukoposting 5y ago

Through enough iteration, all problems can be solved. But, how many iterations will be required to reach a solution that works for everyone? At that point, is there a solid business case for the project?

darkerside 5y ago

I think the key difference is whether the local teams have the choice to opt out or not, and my belief is that they should. If they can, they can solve their own problem if the global solution doesn't work. If the global solution wants to keep them as consumers, they must adapt. If they can't leave, the global team will almost certainly stop responding to their needs over time. Like communism, a global solution is terrific in theory, but human behavior causes it to break down in practice. Caveat, for small enough problems, good enough solutions, and charismatic enough leaders, global solutions can work. But they all break eventually.

whakim 5y ago

> That's just flat wrong. A global solution can solve global concerns and also allow for local conditions. In theory, yes. But in practice, no (and this is the author's point, I think). In theory, the more "local conditions" you have to account for, the more exponentially complex your "global solution" becomes. (This is the "state" metaphor.) In practice, you can't build that impossibly complex system (and it might not be desirable, anyways!) - so you're likely to try to change local practices in service of a more streamlined global solution. The more you do that, the farther away you move from respecting local conditions.