I'm happy to upvote authors who want to talk about making the work environment better for everybody. But I'll also add that in my opinion this is a poorly struc

I'm happy to upvote authors who want to talk about making the work environment better for everybody. But I'll also add that in my opinion this is a poorly structured essay. The crux of the problem with process is premature generalization. People see a couple, or 4-5 examples of something, and then want to make a rule for all projects in an organization. There's waaaaaay too much variance for it to work like that. Readers face a similar problem when reading about success in startups. There's a ton of books on how to make a killer startup -- but most all of them rely on a few examples or a handful of stories. They're long on selection bias and short on usefulness. Orgs do this same thing all the time. There's also a mismatch in the model many technologist bring to organizing the work and the work itself. Since we work with things that move data around and functions that perform data changes, we begin to feel that a well-run organization is built on certain data and functions. It's simply the analogy that is most convenient for us. In reality, we're finding psychological and social factors are playing a much more important role than sets of rules, processes, or data structured and handled in certain ways. This is a big change for many to accept. Still, always good to hear more voices. It continues to amaze me how you can take a kick-ass team of 5 guys and conquer the world. You can then scale that up to a kick-ass team of 100 guys -- and create one of the most miserable work experiences ever. Shameless plug: for those interested in reading some of the stuff I've written about this, check out my blog devoted to the topic: http://tiny-giant-books.com/blog http://tiny-giant-books.com/blog