4 ms·

> Communication overhead is the single biggest killer. True. To put a fine point on this I would add that enabling requisite communication is an exponential e

> Communication overhead is the single biggest killer. True. To put a fine point on this I would add that enabling requisite communication is an exponential equation. Specifically, adding team members typically increases intra-team communication requirements exponentially as does adding teams to the organization. > That's why a small team of experienced engineers, that are used to working together, can often do amazing amounts of work, and that "tribal knowledge" -that bugaboo of software process gurus- is actually a very important accelerator. I believe both situations you have identified are derived from the same concepts - trust and understanding. Trust, in that small experienced teams who have worked together for a nontrivial period of time learn in which areas each excel and where they do not. Understanding, in that those highly effective teams value the trust established and seek to complement each other's skills. I believe "tribal knowledge" should be an expected product of the above and is ideally captured via documentation, mentoring, presentations, etc.

bonoboTP 1y ago
Maybe it's implicit, but you didn't mention why process-people hate illegible tribal knowledge. It's because they fear that the people may have better leverage in salary re-negotiation, and if they bail, the knowledge disappears. They want exchangeable engineers as the article writes. And in a way, becoming more standardized and less unique (at least in the minds of managers) is beneficial to oil the machine of the job market and economy. Ineffective companies can be left quickly, highly profitable companies can grow more easily. More abstractly, explicit rules are a substitute for trust. You can run your family or friend group without coming up with a literal rulebook, but this already fails in a bigger village. So you first get mythical oral religious laws, then city-state laws etc. It's always a trust-substitute. But that's the only way to scale to civilization from distributed tribal lifestyle.
- AdieuToLogic 1y ago
  > Maybe it's implicit, but you didn't mention why process-people hate illegible tribal knowledge. It's because they fear that the people may have better leverage in salary re-negotiation, and if they bail, the knowledge disappears. Being at a disadvantage in annual reviews is certainly a part of it I'm sure. Another non-trivial risk an organization must manage is retaining knowledge in a shareable form should team members transfer to other groups, take on a new role within the organization, or leave for reasons other than failed salary negotiations. > More abstractly, explicit rules are a substitute for trust. This is an interesting concept, thank you for sharing it (seriously). Stating it the way you have succinctly explains some of the asinine policies I have experienced in the past. Usually in large, dysfunctional, organizations I might add.

bonoboTP 1y ago

Maybe it's implicit, but you didn't mention why process-people hate illegible tribal knowledge. It's because they fear that the people may have better leverage in salary re-negotiation, and if they bail, the knowledge disappears. They want exchangeable engineers as the article writes. And in a way, becoming more standardized and less unique (at least in the minds of managers) is beneficial to oil the machine of the job market and economy. Ineffective companies can be left quickly, highly profitable companies can grow more easily. More abstractly, explicit rules are a substitute for trust. You can run your family or friend group without coming up with a literal rulebook, but this already fails in a bigger village. So you first get mythical oral religious laws, then city-state laws etc. It's always a trust-substitute. But that's the only way to scale to civilization from distributed tribal lifestyle.

AdieuToLogic 1y ago
> Maybe it's implicit, but you didn't mention why process-people hate illegible tribal knowledge. It's because they fear that the people may have better leverage in salary re-negotiation, and if they bail, the knowledge disappears. Being at a disadvantage in annual reviews is certainly a part of it I'm sure. Another non-trivial risk an organization must manage is retaining knowledge in a shareable form should team members transfer to other groups, take on a new role within the organization, or leave for reasons other than failed salary negotiations. > More abstractly, explicit rules are a substitute for trust. This is an interesting concept, thank you for sharing it (seriously). Stating it the way you have succinctly explains some of the asinine policies I have experienced in the past. Usually in large, dysfunctional, organizations I might add.