> But people weigh it too heavily. There are plenty of counterexamples of, for instances, fine-grained teams in one company that build a monolith, and the same

> But people weigh it too heavily. There are plenty of counterexamples of, for instances, fine-grained teams in one company that build a monolith, and the same type of teams in another company building a microservices architecture. These aren't counterexamples because Conway's law makes no comment on how the teams will choose to deploy what they build. It talks about the overall design of the system, the solution space that was explored. Windows is a monolithic application if the alternative is microservices, but anyone who gives it more than a cursory glance can see the org chart (both past and present!) reflected in the disjointed UX. > And so new management had to be created, a process we still are working on as well, but many managers these days are way better than managers from 30 years ago. I'm not sure why this makes Conway's law not applicable anymore—what you're describing is that new management does a better job of creating communication structures that lend themselves well to creating software. That may well be correct, but the resulting improvements validate Conway's law! If we're getting better at software, it may well be because people are talking about and accounting for the impact that communication structures have on the output.