My last post on hierarchy generated a fair bit of interest – both online and offline. Once it is pointed out people recognise there is a positive side to hierarchy, it is not so much “hierarchy bad, no hierarchy good” as it is “how much hierarchy?” and the culture around that hierarchy.
But there is something else I have to say, something that has been bugging me for years. Look at the picture above, it is a structure chart, this one from Wikipedia (public domain). I suspect few people below the age of 40 have seen one, this is the way I was taught to design software at University. A structure chart is like a flowchart but horizontal, not vertical.
A structure chart looks a lot like a hierarchy chart. Compare the picture above with the (fantasy) organization chart on my previous post.
Structure charts are used when doing structured programming, a technique used in procedural programming. So Pascal, Modula-2, Algol, even C. In this world (experienced) programmers spend a lot of time thinking (and worrying) about layering. They aim for layered systems, these are drawn as dependency diagrams which – can you guess? – look a lot like hierarchies too.
While all of these techniques still have relevance, in our modern world things have changed. Primarily, procedural programming has given way to object-oriented programming. In OOP the object is the thing: the object is an idea, code and data reside in the object. We build our systems with self contained objects (well ideally).
I like to talk about Amoeba teams, similar ideas emerge under names such as Feature teams, or stand-alone, or even Spotify Squad. The repeated idea is that teams have a purpose and contain the people and skills they need to pursue that purpose.
In the 1970s and 80s we had procedural programming, structure charts and hierarchies. The organizational form of hierarchy matched our programming model. In the 1990s we switched to object-oriented programming and now our organizations are playing catch up in switching to “object oriented teams” (if I can coin a new expression, which naturally abbreviates to OOT).
OOP changes how you design software, it also changes how organizations structure themselves. While OOP changes the way programmes are structured and reduces the way programs are layered (and dependencies managed) it doesn’t do away with a structure. There is still a framework in place. Similarly, OOTs don’t exist in isolation, they need to exist in a framework – a hierarchy of sorts.
(And of course modern UI models and micro-services means main() isn’t always the top of the program any more!)
Conway’s Law implies that a hierarchical organization will adopt procedural programming, which was true in the 60s and 70s. New companies, start-ups, born in the OOP age natural structure as OOTs. Existing companies first see tension because the two models rub against one another.
Then reverse Conway’s Law (Yawnoc as it is sometimes called) would suggest companies move towards OOT – which of course we see with all the big companies adopting “Spotify.”
Which raises the question:
If stand-alone/self-contained teams, and reduced hierarchy, are the organizational structure which parallels object-oriented design and programming… what is the organizational form that parallels functional programming? How do you structure your teams when you are working in Lisp, Haskell or F# ?
What about concurrent (parallel) languages like Occam?
What organizational structure parallels message passing systems?
Or Data flow architecture? And quantum computing?
Like this post? – Like to receive these posts by e-mail? Xanpan