Conway law : From Code Halo to Skin-Ego

Benoit de TARADE
Aug 9, 2017 · 6 min read
from thinkstock image library

Digitization, micro-services, server-less computing, big-data, deep learning, augmented reality, human augmentation; This endless list, this Prévert-style inventory as we said in French, resume the change of era we live.

“It is possible that on the cutoff of one era to the other appears the anarchy…/…”
R. SCHURMANN

The recent clash between Elon MUSK and Mark ZUCKERBERG, highlight the divergences between a worried/anxious point of view, and a positivist/naive other one.

The purpose of my writing isn’t to take side, but to provide a diagnosis framework.

Conway law is bidirectional

“organizations which design systems … are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.”

M. Conway

Before having been a law, it was an adage. But MIT and Harvard researchers found strong evidence which support it. To summarize, for example if part of an organization is in a silo, the system which support the process is very likely to be a silo.

Often, we consider this law as unidirectional. This mean, the structure of the organization impact the structure of the system, but not the inverse. This is partially false. As systems are often designed by people who will not be the end user, by extrapolating, we think that we command the machine. In fact often the machine command us (to run as builders understood what designers think it was right for the end user).

we think that we command the machine, but often the machine command us.

Roland GORI mention the “machine tyranny” and Graham GREENE recall us to the “human factor”. Both highlight a bidirectional feedback and counter-feedback process between humans, organizations and systems.

It can also be seen as a truism, but then, it is often forgotten. When a solution is feed by high level TOM, fit/gap analysis and new business process, and implemented in a long waterfall cycle, it became an evidence that huge change can cause huge trauma and risk to contains deep holes. If changes are addressed through agile practices and short delivery cycles, also some issues appear.

From there, several questions raises;

  • Why some change programs are, blindly, launched?
  • What are the effect of the new paradigm we currently experience, driven by an endless list of innovations?
  • Can we anticipate and/or diagnose social issues if we dig in the structure of a system?

D. ANZIEU’s Skin Ego

Skin Ego (Moi-Peau in French) is a psychoanalytic concept developed by Didier ANZIEU. It have 8 purposes :

  • Composure : Cover the organization to connect it to data capture tools.
  • Holding : Drive the connection between different part of the organization.
  • Protection, Anti-thrill, anti-excitation : Prevent the organization data overloading.
  • Identity : “Brand” of the organization by sharing colors, dictionary, language, to resume all cultural elements.
  • Inter sensiorality : It connect all data provided by the holding function
  • Excitation : By providing a new light, it trigger decision regarding success, failure, roadmap and encourage or boost the organization.
  • Transcription : Connected to external sources it provide data coming from outside of the organization.
  • Tonus stimulation: Keep moving the organization by providing motivations.

Sorry if the translation isn’t perfect

I suggest that we can try to adapt the concept to systems analysis

Code Halo

Code Halo is a really interesting book about digitization. I discovered it while I was waiting for my first interview at Cognizant. Obviously I didn’t have the time to read all of it during the couple of minutes I was waiting, but as soon as I quit the interview, I bought it.

To summarize, it explain how digitization is a question of connecting halo of data coming from several drivers (SMAC), letting us the capability of a new digital print within the range of our fingers.

Changes we are experiencing are big shifts, deep transformations. Those who have the capability to trigger the button, have great responsibility. The misunderstanding between MUSK and ZUKERBERG start here.

It’s time to introduce another acronym. Since the end of the cold war, we live in a VUCA world. To shrink the story, before it was conjugated to business and marketing, this acronym was a military notion. VUCA stands for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity and Ambiguity. Those factors are affected by the capacity to understand, anticipate, appreciate, prepare and interpret.

ZUCKERBERG think in years and MUSK in decades. Perhaps it’s what MUSK thought we he said “His [ZUCKERBARG] understanding of the subject is limited.”

ZUCKERBERG is in a VUCA world and MUSK in another one.

Quick example

The amount of tasks, mails, notifications inform of how the system “excite” an actor or a group. How many mails did we send to trash without reading it? Despite this (lot of notification goes directly to the trash) all new feature comes with it set of notifications. Sometime without asking if it’s really useful, but the requirement is more or less a responsibility discharge.

It’s OK if actors can trigger their anti-thrill function. On the other hand, sometimes, in micro-management or over control context, all notifications are read, handled and addressed. If the amount don’t exceed the capacity all works well. Painfully, but well.

But anti-thrill function have two limitations; time and threshold. It can’t be activated during a long period, and if the amount of excitation exceed its threshold it crash.

Moreover the content of a constant data flow, trigger priming effect to our slow thinking which affect our behaviors and our choices.

If one of those functions are weakened, undermined or disrupted, lot of undesirable effects arise; In system side as in organization and people side.

If an organization could monitor the flow of amount of data sent to part of the system, it could be proactive instead of curative.

I’m aware of the GDPR/private policy compliance constraints regarding such diagnosis tool-set; However, choosing to ignoring is a question of responsibility.

What next?

Keep in touch… I’m building “Conway Law revisited : Bad UX is a Strain

References

  • Thinking, fast and slow — Daniel KHANEMAN
  • Moi-Peau — Didier ANZIEU
  • L’individu ingouvernable — Roland GORI
  • Code Halo — Malcolm FRANK, Paul ROEHRIG, Ben PRING
  • Dynamique des groupes restreints — Didier ANIZEU, Jean-Yves MARTIN
  • L’action contrainte — David COURPASSON
Benoit de TARADE

Written by

AI Advisor@Cognizant : IT is a question of information before technology

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade