Emphasize and repeat impact of communication structures onto system design

[aheusingfeld]

It turns out in real life the impact of Conway's Law is still under estimated. The curriculum should require trainers to prepare architects better for situations in which organizations don't listen but ignore the impact of communication structures onto system design and long-term quality traits of this system. Architects should be able to detect communication structures vs. theoretical org charts and explain the potential result in an AS-IS vs. SHOULD-BE comparison with the help of a Context Map. A link to Architect Elevator "Connect engine room and flight deck" can be useful here

[svenjohann]

I would rather make “Conway’s Law” a subitem of organisational considerations. We need to look at:

• Team Topologies: what are those topologies and how to achieve them
• As Ruth Malan says: “if the architecture of the system and the architecture of the organisation are at odds, the architecture of the organization wins”. We, as architects, need a broader skillset. Riding the elevator and connecting the floors, yes, but also highlighting the need of social skills to navigate and understand organisations. We kind of need to be managers, too. If non-technical managers decide on team structure than those non-technical managers design our systems. This is a whole topic on itself, but we could at least help attendees to find the right resources to get started.

[aheusingfeld]

My thoughts grow stronger to actually split FLEX into a) a technical, developer-focused FLEX curriculum and b) a "socio-technical systems, organisation and interdependencies" ORG curriculum

This curriculum is becoming too broad to assure some consistency across the trainings