From the AllDayDevOps 2017 live stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqowSG2Jxqc
For effective, modern, cloud-connected software systems we need to organize our teams in certain ways. Taking account of Conway’s Law, we look to match the team structures to the required software architecture, enabling or restricting communication and collaboration for the best outcomes.
This talk will cover the basics of organization design, exploring a selection of key team topologies and how and when to use them in order to make the development and operation of your software systems as effective as possible. The talk is based on experience helping companies around the world with the design of their teams.
Takeaways:
- The implications of Conway’s Law for software teams
- Cognitive Load for teams
- Effective team topologies
- Team evolution
VK Business Profile - provides IT solutions and Web Development
Team Topologies - how and why to design your teams - AllDayDevOps 2017
1. October 24, 2017
Team Topologies:
how and why to design your teams
for modern software systems
Matthew Skelton
Co-founder and Principal Consultant
Skelton Thatcher Consulting
@matthewpskelton
2. October 24, 2017
1.The implications of Conway’s Law for teams
2.Cognitive Load for teams
3.Effective team topologies
4.Team evolution
Takeaways – Team Topologies
20. “organizations which design
systems ... are constrained to
produce designs which are copies
of the communication structures of
these organizations”
– Mel Conway, 1968
http://www.melconway.com/Home/Conways_Law.html
21. “if the architecture of the system and
the architecture of the organization
are at odds, the architecture of the
organization wins”
– Ruth Malan, 2008
http://traceinthesand.com/blog/2008/02/13/conways-law/
22. “We find strong evidence to support
the hypothesis that a product’s
architecture tends to mirror the
structure of the organization in
which it is developed.”
– MacCormack et al, 2012
MacCormack, Alan, Carliss Y. Baldwin, and John Rusnak. ‘Exploring the Duality Between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the
“Mirroring” Hypothesis’, 1 October 2012. http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=43260.
34. Science since 1988
• Driskell et al, 1999 ‘Does Stress Lead to a Loss of Team Perspective?’ Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice 3, no. 4 (1999): 291.
• Fan et al, 2010 ‘Learning HMM-Based Cognitive Load Models for Supporting Human-Agent
Teamwork’. Cognitive Systems Research 11, no. 1 (2010): 108–119.
• Ilgen & Hollenbeck, 1993 ‘Effective Team Performance under Stress and Normal
Conditions: An Experimental Paradigm, Theory and Data for Studying Team Decision
Making in Hierarchical Teams with Distributed Expertise’. DTIC Document, 1993.
• Johnston et al, 2002 ‘Application of Cognitive Load Theory to Developing a Measure of
Team Decision Efficiency’. DTIC Document, 2002.
• Sweller, John, 1994 ‘Cognitive Load Theory, Learning Difficulty, and Instructional Design’.
Learning and Instruction 4 (1994): 295–312.
• Sweller, John, 1988. ‘Cognitive Load during Problem Solving: Effects on Learning’.
Cognitive Science 12, no. 2 (1988): 257–285.
35. “stress impacts team
performance … by narrowing or
weakening the team-level
perspective required for
effective team behavior.”
– Driskell et al, 1999
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1999, Vol. 3, No. 4,291-302
80. “stress impacts team
performance … by narrowing or
weakening the team-level
perspective required for
effective team behavior.”
– Driskell et al, 1999
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 1999, Vol. 3, No. 4,291-302
81. Match the team responsibility
to the cognitive load that the
team can handle