Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Conway's Law

Conway's Law is a principle in computer science and systems design stating that "Organizations which design systems (in the broad sense: any kind of non-trivial system) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations."^[1] Formulated by computer scientist Melvin E. Conway, this observation underscores how the social and structural dynamics of teams imprint themselves onto the technical architectures they create, particularly in software engineering where communication barriers can lead to modular or siloed system designs.^[1] The law originated in Conway's 1968 article "How Do Committees Invent?", published in the journal Datamation, where he argued that the invention process in large organizations mirrors their hierarchical and communicative patterns, using examples like compiler designs and military weapon systems to illustrate how rigid structures propagate inefficiencies into final products.^[1] It gained prominence when named "Conway's Law" by Frederick P. Brooks Jr. in his 1975 book The Mythical Man-Month, a foundational text on software project management that emphasized the human factors in development.^[2] In practice, Conway's Law explains why software architectures often reflect organizational silos—such as separate teams for databases, user interfaces, or quality assurance—resulting in tightly coupled systems that hinder scalability and maintenance.^[3] To address this, practitioners apply the inverse Conway maneuver, which involves deliberately reorganizing team communication and boundaries to align with the intended system architecture, such as forming cross-functional teams for microservices to promote loose coupling and faster delivery.^[2] This approach, explored in modern frameworks like Team Topologies, highlights the law's ongoing relevance in optimizing organizational design for efficient software evolution.^[3]

History and Origins

Origin of the Law

Melvin Conway, an American computer scientist and programmer, began his career in information technology in 1956, working with punched-card systems and vacuum-tube computers during the early days of commercial computing.^[4] By the mid-1960s, he held a position as a manager at Sperry Rand's UNIVAC Division, where he contributed to software development amid the growing complexity of computing systems.^[5] His academic background included an M.S. in physics from Caltech and a Ph.D. in mathematics from Case Western Reserve University, which informed his analytical approach to systems design.^[5] Conway formulated the law in 1967 based on his observations of how committees approached the invention of complex systems, noting that organizational structures inherently shaped design outcomes through constrained communication paths.^[6] He argued that design teams, often organized into subcommittees mirroring proposed system modules, produced artifacts that replicated these divisions, limiting innovation in modular architectures.^[5] This insight arose from examples in computer programming, such as compiler development, and broader systems like military projects, where subsystem designs echoed committee boundaries.^[5] The law first appeared in print in Conway's article "How Do Committees Invent?" published in the April 1968 issue of Datamation, a leading IT magazine of the era.^[6] In it, he stated: "Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure."^[5] The paper had been submitted earlier in 1967 to the Harvard Business Review, which rejected it, prompting resubmission to Datamation.^[6] This formulation occurred against the backdrop of early software development in the 1960s, marked by the rise of large-scale computing projects like IBM's OS/360 operating system and the SABRE airline reservation system, which highlighted escalating costs and delays.^[7] Developers faced significant challenges in modular design, as systems grew beyond individual capabilities, leading to the so-called "software crisis" recognized at the 1968 NATO Conference on Software Engineering. Conway's work reflected these pressures, emphasizing how communication silos in teams impeded effective modularity in complex, multi-component software.^[7]

Initial Reception

In 1967, Melvin Conway submitted a paper titled "How Do Committees Invent?" to the Harvard Business Review, which rejected it on the grounds that the thesis lacked empirical evidence to support its claims about organizational influences on system design.^[6] The paper was subsequently published in Datamation magazine in April 1968, a prominent publication that served as a primary forum for computing professionals and discussions on emerging technologies during the late 1960s.^[8] During the 1970s, Conway's ideas received early citations in software engineering literature, including a 1972 NASA technical report on software development practices and Frederick P. Brooks Jr.'s influential 1975 book The Mythical Man-Month, where Brooks formally named the observation "Conway's Law" while discussing team structures in large-scale programming projects.^[9] These references appeared amid broader debates on software modularity and team organization, though they remained niche within the field. Conway later reflected on his work as a serious sociological observation rather than a humorous aside or abstract koan, emphasizing its roots in analyzing how communication constraints shape system architectures.^[6] Despite these initial acknowledgments, the law did not achieve widespread recognition until the 1980s, when it began influencing discussions on systems design and organizational theory in computing.^[2]

Statement and Interpretations

Original Statement

Conway's Law, as originally articulated, states: "organizations which design systems (in the broad sense used here) are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations."^[5] This formulation appeared in Melvin Conway's 1968 article published in Datamation.^[5] The term "system" is defined broadly in the original statement to encompass not only technical artifacts like software or hardware but any structured whole derived from diverse components through intellectual design activity, such as weapon systems, social policy recommendations, or computer programs composed of interconnected subsystems.^[5] Similarly, "communication structure" refers to the formal and informal pathways, protocols, and coordination mechanisms within an organization, including hierarchies, departmental silos, and interfaces between teams that facilitate or constrain information flow during collaborative efforts.^[5] At its core, the law describes a mirroring effect wherein the boundaries and divisions in an organization's communication—such as separate teams or departments—inevitably result in corresponding modular, partitioned, or siloed elements in the system's design, reflecting how human collaboration shapes outcomes.^[5] This constraint underscores the law's portrayal of the phenomenon as an unavoidable consequence of organizational dynamics in design processes, rather than a deliberate choice.^[5]

Key Interpretations

Conway's Law is fundamentally interpreted as establishing a direct correspondence between an organization's communication patterns and the resulting system architecture, such that the boundaries and interfaces in the designed system reflect the divisions and connections among development teams. Conway described this as a homomorphic relation, meaning a structure-preserving mapping from the organization's communication structure to the system's design.^[5] For example, isolated or siloed teams often yield monolithic systems with limited interoperability, mirroring the restricted information flow within the organization. This core interpretation emphasizes that system design is not solely a technical endeavor but emerges from the social and structural constraints of the designing group.^[10] A key debate surrounds the direction of causality in this mirroring effect. The predominant view posits forward causation, where the organization's structure proactively shapes the system's architecture by constraining communication channels during design. However, evidence suggests bidirectional or reverse influences, whereby the existing system architecture—particularly legacy code—imposes its own communication requirements on developers, thereby perpetuating or even reshaping organizational culture and interactions over time. Melvin Conway himself acknowledged this reciprocity, noting that organizational choices not only determine system structure but also limit subsequent design options, creating a feedback loop.^[10]^[11] From a sociological perspective, the law serves as an observation of how human social dynamics—such as trust, collaboration, and informal networks—influence technical outcomes, extending beyond mere engineering to encompass the interpersonal realities of design work. Initially presented as a lighthearted remark, it has evolved in interpretations from a humorous anecdote highlighting committee inefficiencies to a prescriptive principle advocating intentional alignment of team structures with desired system properties. This lens underscores that effective design requires minimizing unnecessary communication dependencies while fostering essential ones, particularly in distributed or multi-site settings where geographic barriers can exacerbate misalignment.^[10] The desirability of this mirroring varies by context: it proves beneficial when organizational modularity aligns with system modularity, enabling scalable and maintainable architectures that leverage team autonomy for innovation. Conversely, it becomes problematic when dysfunctional structures, like rigid silos, embed inefficiencies into the system, leading to brittle designs that hinder adaptability and increase coordination costs. To mitigate undesirable outcomes, some advocate proactive reorganization to achieve optimal mirroring, though this demands careful consideration of human factors in implementation.^[10]^[11] The original statement illustrates the law's broad applicability to fields beyond software engineering, such as weapon systems and policy recommendations, where organizational structures shape the resulting designs.^[5]

Empirical Evidence

Supporting Studies

Empirical validation of Conway's Law, particularly its core mirroring hypothesis, has been provided through several key studies in software engineering and organizational design. A seminal 2008 study conducted by researchers from the University of Maryland and Microsoft analyzed the development of Windows Vista, encompassing over 3,400 binaries and more than 50 million lines of code. The analysis demonstrated that organizational structure significantly influences software quality and architecture, with metrics such as organizational distance (measured via communication graphs derived from code ownership and edit histories) and master ownership depth correlating strongly with failure-proneness and modularity levels. Specifically, teams with more cohesive communication structures produced components with lower coupling and higher modularity, supporting the idea that system design mirrors team interactions, as organizational metrics predicted failure-prone binaries with 86.2% precision and 84.0% recall, outperforming traditional code metrics like churn.^[12] Building on this, a 2012 study by MacCormack, Baldwin, and Rusnak from Harvard Business School and MIT examined the duality between product and organizational architectures across multiple software projects, including both open-source and proprietary systems. The research tested the mirroring hypothesis by comparing organizational architectures (e.g., tightly-coupled commercial firms vs. loosely-coupled open-source communities) with code dependencies, finding that loosely coupled organizations consistently produced more modular architectures with fewer unintended dependencies. For instance, dependency analysis revealed that projects with distributed, low-density organizational structures exhibited higher modularity scores, as quantified by metrics like the average path length in design structure matrices, confirming that organizational coupling directly shapes software modularity without strict causality direction.^[13] A comprehensive 2016 review by Colfer and Baldwin synthesized evidence from 142 studies across software, manufacturing, and other industries, providing robust statistical confirmation of the mirroring hypothesis. The meta-analysis integrated data from organizational charts, communication logs, and code metrics, showing a significant positive correlation (with effect sizes ranging from moderate to strong) between team structures and system designs in over 80% of cases examined. Key quantifications included network density measures for communication graphs and coupling coefficients for code dependencies, which demonstrated that aligned socio-technical structures reduce integration costs and enhance adaptability, extending Conway's original observation beyond software to broader industrial contexts.^[14] Additional validations include analyses highlighting the law's impact on architecture formation. In game development, a 2022 discussion by software engineer Casey Muratori emphasized the universality of mirroring, noting how fragmented team communications in large studios lead to tightly coupled codebases, as observed in production engines. These studies collectively employ tools like communication graphs (e.g., from email and version control data), code coupling metrics (e.g., fan-in/fan-out ratios), and dependency graphs to quantify the extent of mirroring, establishing Conway's Law as a verifiable socio-technical principle rather than mere anecdote.^[15]

Limitations and Criticisms

One early criticism of Conway's Law emerged from its initial publication attempt, when Melvin Conway submitted his paper "How Do Committees Invent?" to the Harvard Business Review in 1967, only to have it rejected on the grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence to prove the thesis and relied too heavily on anecdotal observations.^[6] This rejection underscored a foundational concern: the law's formulation as an ad hoc observation rather than a rigorously tested hypothesis, which limited its immediate academic and practical acceptance. Methodological challenges have persistently hampered empirical investigations of the law, particularly in quantifying the "communication structure" it posits as a key driver of system design. Researchers often resort to proxies such as organizational charts, email logs, or self-reported interactions, which introduce biases like overlooking informal or transient communications and failing to capture dynamic team interactions accurately.^[14] A comprehensive review of 142 studies from 1968 to 2014 highlighted these measurement difficulties, noting that subjective classifications and non-exhaustive sampling further complicate validation efforts.^[14] Exceptions to the mirroring effect challenge the law's universality, with deliberate organizational interventions sometimes disrupting the expected alignment between communication patterns and system architecture. For instance, agile practices that emphasize cross-functional teams and iterative collaboration can break traditional silos, leading to more integrated designs than the organizational structure might predict.^[14] A 2013 literature review of studies from 2003 to 2012 further revealed variability in application, observing stronger mirroring in small organizations with simpler structures compared to large ones, where distributed teams and dynamic environments often result in misalignments.^[16] Critiques regarding causality question whether the law establishes true causation or merely correlation, with debates centering on "reverse Conway" effects where system designs imposed on teams can reshape communication flows in the opposite direction.^[14] The law's scope remains limited, with the majority of empirical work confined to software engineering and related technical domains, showing underrepresentation in non-software fields like manufacturing or services despite conceptual applicability.^[14] Post-2020, few studies have examined cultural or remote work influences, leaving gaps in understanding how virtual communication tools alter mirroring dynamics amid widespread distributed teams; as of November 2025, empirical research in this area remains sparse.

Applications and Implications

In Software Engineering

Conway's Law profoundly influences software architecture by causing the structure of developed systems to mirror the communication patterns within engineering teams. Siloed or compartmentalized teams, often divided by functional specialties such as frontend, backend, and database development, tend to produce tightly coupled, monolithic codebases where components are interdependent and changes propagate widely.^[2] In contrast, cross-functional teams that collaborate closely on shared goals foster modular designs, enabling independent evolution of system parts and reducing unintended coupling.^[2] This alignment promotes scalability and maintainability, as seen in practices where team boundaries are drawn around business capabilities to encourage loosely coupled modules.^[17] In DevOps practices, Conway's Law underscores the need to align deployment pipelines and tooling with team structures to minimize friction. Traditional handoffs between siloed operations and development teams create bottlenecks, slowing release cycles and increasing error rates due to miscommunications.^[18] By organizing cross-functional teams that own end-to-end delivery—including code, infrastructure, and testing—organizations can streamline pipelines, enabling self-service provisioning and automated deployments that enhance overall velocity.^[19] This approach reduces coordination overhead, allowing teams to iterate faster without external dependencies disrupting flow.^[18] The adoption of microservices architecture exemplifies the application of reverse Conway's Law, where system decomposition deliberately shapes team organization. Rather than letting existing team silos dictate a monolithic structure, architects apply the inverse maneuver by breaking systems into services aligned with business domains, such as user authentication or payment processing.^[20] This enables autonomous squads to own and deploy services independently, matching the granularity of team communications to service boundaries and improving agility in large-scale applications.^[2] Legacy systems often perpetuate inefficiencies embedded by historical organizational changes, complicating modernization efforts under Conway's Law. Past restructurings, such as mergers or departmental splits, can leave codebases with artifacts like redundant interfaces or overly integrated modules that reflect obsolete communication paths, making refactoring costly and risky.^[17] For instance, a monolithic application built by a unified team may resist decomposition when the organization later fragments into distributed groups, as the coarse-grained interactions among teams fail to support the fine-grained modifications needed for modularity.^[17] These mismatches hinder adaptability, requiring careful analysis to disentangle embedded dependencies before iterative improvements can proceed. To visualize and mitigate these mirroring issues, tools like dependency graphs and architecture decision records (ADRs) provide essential aids in software engineering. Dependency graphs map code interdependencies alongside team ownership, revealing unintended couplings—such as excessive cross-team module links—that violate desired modularity and allowing targeted refactoring.^[21] ADRs, lightweight documents capturing justified architectural choices with their context, trade-offs, and consequences, help teams document decisions that align system evolution with organizational intent, preventing drift from Conway's Law influences over time.^[22] Together, these practices enable engineers to audit and adjust architectures proactively, ensuring sustained alignment between code and team structures.^[22]

In Organizational Design

The reverse Conway's Law posits that organizations can intentionally shape their communication structures, such as through cross-functional teams, to influence and achieve a desired system architecture, rather than allowing the system to dictate the structure. This approach gained prominence in 2010s agile literature, particularly through frameworks emphasizing socio-technical alignment to promote modularity and efficiency. By designing teams around business capabilities or product domains, organizations mitigate the risk of monolithic systems emerging from siloed communication paths. In scaling applications, models like Spotify's "tribes and squads" structure exemplify this inverse application, where autonomous squads (small, cross-functional teams) are grouped into tribes to support modular product evolution without rigid hierarchies.^[23] This setup fosters independent development streams, enabling rapid scaling while aligning team boundaries with evolving system components.^[23] Such designs reduce coordination overhead and encourage evolutionary architecture, as teams can iterate on isolated modules that integrate seamlessly. The benefits for organizational agility include dismantling silos to accelerate iteration cycles, as cross-team collaboration mirrors desired system flows and minimizes handoff delays.^[3] In remote and hybrid work environments, this implies prioritizing virtual communication tools and protocols that replicate effective in-person interactions, ensuring distributed teams maintain the connectivity needed for cohesive system design.^[24] By aligning virtual structures with architectural goals, organizations sustain agility despite physical dispersion.^[24] Broader implications extend to government and enterprises, where restructuring to counter bureaucratic designs prevents overly centralized or fragmented systems; for instance, a 2025 analysis highlights how siloed agencies produce inefficient public services, advocating for capability-based teams to enable more adaptive outcomes.^[25] Practical strategies involve organizational mirroring exercises, such as mapping team boundaries to system modules during planning phases, to proactively align structures with intended architectures. These exercises, often conducted in workshops, reveal misalignments and guide iterative refinements for long-term socio-technical congruence.

Examples

Historical Examples

One prominent historical example of Conway's Law in action occurred during the development of IBM's OS/360 operating system in the 1960s. The project's hierarchical management structure, involving multiple specialized teams with limited cross-communication, led to a complex, layered software architecture that mirrored these organizational silos, resulting in integration challenges and delayed delivery. Fred Brooks, who managed the OS/360 effort, later referenced Conway's observation to explain how the system's interface specifications reflected the communication constraints of the development organization, exacerbating the project's difficulties.^[26] In the realm of early web development, usability expert Nigel Bevan observed in 1998 that many corporate websites structured their content and navigation around internal departmental boundaries rather than user needs, creating fragmented user experiences. For instance, sites often featured disjointed sections corresponding to sales, marketing, and support silos, which hindered intuitive access to information and frustrated visitors seeking a cohesive view of the company's offerings. This mirroring of organizational structures without consideration for external usability demonstrated how communication patterns could inadvertently shape digital interfaces in the nascent internet era.^[27] Government defense projects in the 1960s, such as the U.S. Department of Defense's 473L command and control system, provide another illustration. Melvin Conway, who contributed to the 473L effort, noted that the rigid, siloed contractor teams—governed by strict waterfall processes under DoD Directive 5000.29—produced fragmented system interfaces that echoed these isolated communication channels, leading to interoperability issues among components. This case, drawn from Conway's direct experience, underscored the law's influence on large-scale public sector initiatives where multiple vendors operated in parallel without effective coordination.^[28] These pre-2000 examples highlight the unintended consequences of organizational communication structures on system design, often resulting in overly complex or user-unfriendly architectures due to the absence of collaborative practices like those later popularized in agile methodologies. In each instance, the mirroring effect persisted because project teams prioritized internal hierarchies over holistic integration, amplifying maintenance and scalability challenges in early computing environments.

Modern Examples

In the 2010s, Amazon intentionally restructured its engineering organization around small, autonomous "two-pizza teams"—groups small enough to be fed by two pizzas—to foster independent development and achieve a highly distributed microservices architecture. This approach exemplified the reverse Conway maneuver, where team boundaries were aligned to mirror the desired modular system design, enabling rapid iteration and scalability across services like AWS components.^[29]^[30]^[31] Netflix's engineering practices demonstrate Conway's Law through its modular streaming platform architecture, which reflects the distributed nature of its global teams handling content delivery, personalization, and infrastructure. By reorganizing teams to align with architectural goals—such as creating a unified observability platform—the company applied an inverse Conway maneuver, reducing silos and enabling faster scaling to support millions of concurrent users across regions. This team-driven modularity has been key to Netflix's ability to deploy thousands of changes daily without widespread disruptions.^[32]^[33] In U.S. federal IT projects as of late 2024, bureaucratic silos have led to fragmented data systems that mirror agency communication barriers, resulting in duplicative tools, multiple user logins, and inefficient service delivery for citizens. According to the Niskanen Center, these structures prioritize departmental mandates over integrated outcomes, exacerbating issues in areas like digital public services where tight feedback loops are needed for complex problem-solving. Efforts to address this include recommendations for cross-agency product teams to better align IT with user needs.^[25] The evolution of the Linux kernel illustrates how open-source contributor networks shape module boundaries, with 76% of authors specializing in specific subsystems like drivers or core components, reinforcing the kernel's modular design. Analysis of developers across 66 releases shows co-authorship clusters within subsystems, where collaboration patterns—such as mentorship networks—concentrate expertise and maintain clear boundaries, supporting the kernel's stability and extensibility for diverse hardware. This reflects an inverse application of Conway's Law, where the architecture influences contributor organization in a decentralized community.^[34] In 2023 enterprise cloud migrations, legacy organizational silos often caused hybrid integration challenges, as siloed teams produced disjointed systems that hindered seamless data flow between on-premises and cloud environments. Reports highlight that 53% of such projects failed due to disconnects between cloud strategy and business goals, often linked to silos leading to increased costs and operational blind spots in multi-cloud setups. Addressing this required breaking down silos through cross-functional teams to ensure architectures supported unified hybrid operations.^[35]^[36]^[37]

Variations

One notable rephrasing of Conway's Law appears in the work of Edward Yourdon and Larry Constantine, who stated in 1979 that "the structure of a system is isomorphic to the structure of the organization that designs it," emphasizing a direct structural correspondence between organizational form and system design.^[38] In 2004, James O. Coplien and Neil B. Harrison extended this idea in their book Organizational Patterns of Agile Software Development, stressing the importance of deliberately aligning organizational and product architectures to achieve project success in agile software development.^[39] Building on these foundations, Alan MacCormack, Carliss Y. Baldwin, and John Rusnak formalized the "mirroring hypothesis" in 2012 as a testable theory positing that the modularity and boundaries in a product's architecture will mirror the communication and coordination structures within the developing organization, supported by empirical analysis of complex product designs like the Linux kernel and Apache web server.^[13] Research has proposed a task-based perspective on Conway's Law, shifting the focus from team-level structures to individual tasks and their dependencies, suggesting that finer-grained alignment at the task level—such as matching task interdependencies to developer interactions—can enhance software modularity and maintainability, as evidenced in a 2011 study of collaborative development environments.^[40] An inverse variation, often termed the "reverse Conway" or "inverse Conway maneuver," inverts the original causality by advocating the design of organizational structures to deliberately shape desired system architectures, a principle prominently applied in microservices literature to promote loosely coupled teams that foster modular, scalable software systems.^[2] Brooks' Law, articulated by Frederick P. Brooks Jr. in his 1975 book The Mythical Man-Month, states that "adding manpower to a late software project makes it later." This principle highlights the communication overhead that increases with team size, complementing Conway's Law by explaining how organizational structures, through expanded teams, can exacerbate delays in system development due to non-linear coordination costs.^[26] In organizational theory applied to software engineering, communication costs within teams grow quadratically with the number of members, as the potential links between individuals follow the formula \frac{n(n-1)}{2}, where n is team size; this non-linear scaling underscores why systems mirroring siloed organizations often lead to inefficiencies in integration and maintenance.^[41] Domain-Driven Design (DDD), as proposed by Eric Evans in his 2003 book Domain-Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software, emphasizes aligning software architecture with business domains through bounded contexts—explicit boundaries where a particular model and language apply—echoing Conway's Law by advocating that development structures should reflect domain substructures to enhance coherence and adaptability.^[42] Socio-technical systems theory, developed in the 1950s by researchers at the Tavistock Institute including Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth, posits that effective systems arise from the joint optimization of social and technical elements, where organizational dynamics and technology co-evolve; this framework provides a broader lens for Conway's Law, viewing software architectures as outcomes of intertwined human and technical interactions in work systems. In agile and DevOps practices, principles such as Amazon's "you build it, you run it" mantra—championed by CTO Werner Vogels to foster end-to-end ownership—encourage cross-functional teams that mirror system responsibilities, thereby applying Conway's Law inversely to reshape organizations around desired architectures for improved collaboration and deployment.^[43]

References

[1]
http://www.melconway.com/Home/pdf/committees.pdf
[2]
Conway's Law - Martin Fowler
Oct 20, 2022 · 1: The source for Conway's law is an article written by Melvin Conway in 1968. It was published by Datamation, one of the most important ...
[3]
Conway's Law: Critical for Efficient Team Design in Tech
Nov 24, 2020 · This post on Conway's Law is adapted from Chapter 2 of Team Topologies: Organizing Business and Technology Teams for Fast Flow.
[4]
Inventor - Mel Conway's
My work with computers began in 1956, when the dominant technology for high-volume commercial record keeping was based on drawers full of punched cards.
[5]
[PDF] HOW DO COMMITTEES INVENT? - Mel Conway's
by MELVIN E. CONWAY. That kind of intellectual activity which creates a useful whole from its diverse parts may be called the design of a system.
[6]
Conway's Law
Conway's Law. In 1967 I submitted a paper called "How Do Committees Invent?" to the Harvard Business Review. HBR rejected it on the grounds that I had not ...
[7]
Software engineering in 1968 - ACM Digital Library
The paper attempts to portrays the 1968 software scene, by recalling the principle technical issues and concerns of the time. These are.Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges
[8]
How Do Committees Invent? - Mel Conway's
Melvin E. Conway. Copyright 1968, F. D. Thompson Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission of. Datamation magazine, where it appeared April, 1968.
[9]
[PDF] ~Unclas - NASA Technical Reports Server
Aug 24, 1972 · M. E. Conway, "How do Committees Invent?" DATAMATION, April 1968. 7. J. N. Buxton and B. Randell, eds., Software Engineering Techniques,. Report ...
[10]
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/302405.302455
[11]
[PDF] Toward Simplifying Application Development, in a Dozen Lessons
Jan 3, 2017 · Conway's Law applies to each in turn, as well at to the entire waterfall itself. 4. This relationship is one-to-one (bidirectional) only if ...
[12]
[PDF] THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE ON ...
University of Maryland. College Park, MD, USA basili@cs.umd.edu. ABSTRACT ... on Conway's law [15] and its implications on quality is significant. To the ...
[13]
Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures
Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Author links open overlay panel. Alan MacCormack ,
[14]
The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions
In computer science, it is known as Conway's Law (Conway, 1968). Notably, the hypothesis predicts correspondence but does not impose a direction of causality: ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[15]
Empirical research supports Conway's Law - Allan Kelly
Jan 4, 2009 · MacCormack, John Rusnak, and Carliss Y. Baldwin). The author's note Conway's Law as one example of the mirroring hypotheses and cite several ...
[16]
The Only Unbreakable Law - YouTube
Mar 15, 2022 · Go to channel IntelliJ IDEA, a JetBrains IDE · Software Performance: Avoiding Slow Code, Myths & Sane Approaches – Casey Muratori | The Marco ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
A Decade of Conway's Law: A Literature Review from 2003-2012
This pilot study attempts to articulate many of the views currently held within the software engineering community regarding Conway's Law. By doing so we hope ...
[18]
Demystifying Conway's Law | Thoughtworks
Jun 30, 2014 · At the time, the Harvard Business Review rejected his original paper based on the fact that he hadn't proved his hypothesis. Nonetheless, this ...
[19]
What Can Conway's Law Teach Us About DevOps?
Feb 14, 2018 · Conway's Law suggests that we should align all these areas to the overall business model. This is a concept that also sits at the heart of DevOps.
[20]
How (and Why) to Design With Conway's Law in Mind - IT Revolution
Nov 30, 2021 · This week, based on the newly updated and expanded second edition of The DevOps Handbook, we are learning how and why to design with Conway's law in mind.
[21]
Conway's Law: A Primer – BMC Software | Blogs
Jun 2, 2020 · The theory behind this law is based on the logic that effective, functional software requires frequent communication between stakeholders.Missing: personal | Show results with:personal
[22]
Visualize Conway's Law in your Codebase. Read more! - CodeScene
The interactive view visualizes dependencies between teams and developers in a codebase. Each shape is a team, each circle represents a specific developer in ...Missing: graphs mitigation
[23]
Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) | Architectural Decision ...
An Architectural Decision (AD) is a justified design choice that addresses a functional or non-functional requirement that is architecturally significant.Decision Capturing Tools · ADR Templates · AD PracticesMissing: Conway's Law
[24]
[PDF] Scaling Agile @ Spotify - Crisp's Blog
We have both presented at conferences and been caught in engaging discussions around how we work at. Spotify and how the company handles agile with hundreds of ...
[25]
Conway's Law Explained: Impact on Product Development and ...
Conway's Law was coined by computer programmer Melvin Conway in 1967. It was first published in his paper "How Do Committees Invent?" in 1968. How does ...Missing: formulation | Show results with:formulation
[26]
Conway's Law at Government Scale - Niskanen Center
Aug 21, 2025 · When government agencies are siloed, or poorly coordinated, the services they deliver carry the same flaws.Missing: recognition until 1980s
[27]
[PDF] The Mythical Man Month
took over OS/360, I began to analyze the OS/360 experience to see what management and technical lessons were to be learned. In particular, I wanted to ...
[28]
[PDF] Usability Issues in Web Site Design - GOV.UK
28 Bevan N (1997) Usability Issues in Web Site Design. In: Proceedings of HCI International'97, San Francisco, 24-. 30 August 1997. 29 Bevan N (1998) ...
[29]
[PDF] I'm going to talk about something important that has - Mel Conway's
Oct 16, 2013 · My experience with 473L was formative, and was an influence in my formulation of Conway's Law. The process at the time was rigid waterfall, ...
[30]
Two-Pizza Teams Are Just the Start, Part 2: Accountability and ...
Mar 18, 2021 · I am sure at this point you have heard of Conway's law, which states “organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs ...Single-Threaded Leaders · Small Dedicated Teams Built... · Guardrails, Not Tollgates
[31]
Two Pizza Team - Martin Fowler
Jul 25, 2023 · ... Conways Law. Software components built by two-pizza teams need well-controlled interactions with their peers, with clear APIs between them.
[32]
The enduring link between Conway's Law and microservices
Apr 7, 2023 · Conway's Law has played -- and continues to play -- a crucial role in microservices architecture implementation.
[33]
Pulling an Inverse Conway Maneuver at Netflix - Coding Forest
Sep 4, 2023 · This is Conway's Law. If you know which architecture you aim for, you can adapt the org structure to facilitate arriving at your goal.
[34]
Refactoring Organizations - A Netflix Study - QCon New York
Understand the complex relationship between architecture and organization commonly described as Conway's Law. Hear lessons and stories on how organizational ...
[35]
Measuring and analyzing code authorship in 1 + 118 open source ...
May 1, 2019 · Linux kernel evolution and Conway's Law. Proposed in 1968, Conway's Law asserts that “organizations are constrained to produce application ...
[36]
[PDF] Unlocking Growth Opportunities with Cloud-Enabled Innovation
Jun 26, 2023 · For example, a disconnect between cloud strategy and business goals is the most reported reason for cloud migration projects to fail (53%). For ...<|separator|>
[37]
For monster cloud migrations in 2023, destroy silos, build culture ...
Jan 31, 2023 · As we enter 2023, tech teams face the challenge of cloud migration and digital transformation. Here are 5 tips to navigate these projects ...Missing: organizational | Show results with:organizational
[38]
Obstacles and Opportunities: The Move to Cloud IAM - Ping Identity
Nov 14, 2023 · The survey showed that organizations are having trouble overcoming the challenges with cloud migration, primarily in two areas: organizational ...
[39]
[PDF] Structured Design ISBN 0-917072-11 - vtda.org
... Constantine. YOURIDN Press. 1133 Avenue of the Americas. New York, New York ... Yourdon, "Reliability Measurements for Third Generation Computer Sys- tems ...
[40]
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6111370
[41]
https://towardsdatascience.com/software-development-is-almost-100-about-communication-1bb9bc60810f
[42]
[PDF] Domain-driven design: Tackling complexity in the heart of software
(Final Manuscript, April 15, 2003) © Eric Evans, 2003. 3. Table of Contents ... BOUNDED CONTEXTS. Within a BOUNDED CONTEXT, a process of CONTINUOUS ...
[43]
Enterprise DevOps: Why You Should Run What You Build
Aug 31, 2015 · “You build it, you run it” -Werner Vogels. It's an all-too-common scenario: You're spending time with your family and your phone suddenly ...