Subgrouping and Conway's Law

Especially in larger task-oriented work groups working on the more complex tasks, subgrouping is the practice of forming a subgroup of the larger group in order to complete a subtask of the larger task. In task-oriented work groups, subgrouping is often driven by a combination of task demands and access to personnel. Some examples of factors influencing subgroup formation:

• The subtask might require special knowledge that only a few people have
• Completing the subtask might require special equipment or software that's available in only limited numbers
• The subgroup might be a unit of an independent enterprise acting as a contractor or subcontractor to the organization hosting the larger group
• The organization might designate the subgroup's members so as to avoid impractical combinations of time zones
• The roster of the subgroup might be designed to ensure that the people who worked on an earlier version of the subtask would be well represented
• A more dysfunctional example (of the many): Person A might be essential for completing the subtask, but Person A might be so difficult to work with that only a few members of the larger group can work with Person A in harmony

Communications technology reduces location constraints on subgroups

If the task demands that subgroup members work closely together and communicate often, then even as recently as 1990 or 2000, we would almost always assign people to the subgroup so that everyone was at the same site, or working in the same city or building. In terms of priority for assignment to subtask, someone's location might have rivaled their skill set.

Today's communications technologies can greatly diminish the impact of the location constraint. Access to videoconference technology is now so widespread that geography provides a much-reduced constraint on subgrouping. The demands of the task and personnel availability are now much more dominant than they once were.

Conway's Law

Conway's Law (the Law) Access to videoconference technology
is now so widespread that geography
now provides only a much-reduced
constraint on subgroupingisn't actually a law in the legal sense. It's a pattern first described in 1968 by computer scientist Melvin Conway, and named "Conway's Law" by Fred Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month. [Conway 1968] [Brooks 1982] The Law says, "…organizations which design systems…are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." Conway also observes:

This kind of a structure-preserving relationship between two sets of things is called a homomorphism. Speaking as a mathematician might, we would say that there is a homomorphism from the linear graph of a system to the linear graph of its design organization.

As Conway puts it even more concisely, "Systems image their design groups." Specifically, for each pair of interacting system elements A and B, there is an interacting pair of groups of system designers, A' and B', respectively responsible for system elements A and B.

Conway's Law has implications that reach beyond system design. For example, it's likely a cause of the formation or persistence of technical debt in cases where reorganizations or organizational acquisitions have broken the homomorphism between the social architecture of the organization and the technical architectures of the systems that organization maintains. [Brenner 2019.4] [Brenner 2019.5]

The role of Conway's Law in subgrouping

Subgrouping might also provide an example of Conway's Law. But in a fascinating twist, in subgrouping, the Law can have influence in a direction opposite to the sense of the law as expressed by Conway. One can understand how the Law constrains an organization to produce system designs that, in Conway's words, "image their design groups." But suppose a task-oriented work group is performing maintenance on an existing system. When that work group forms subgroups, the demands of the task constrain how the subgroups form. In this way, the subgroups image the system.

If this is so, then when the task requires a period of intensive work on Subtask A, the work group would tend to form a subgroup (Subgroup A) to attend to Subtask A. Subgroup A might then develop along the lines of Tuckman/Jensen's Developmental Sequence for small groups, finally Adjourning when Subtask A is complete. [Tuckman & Jensen 1977]

Communications technology weakens the geographical constraint

Formerly, the geolocation of group members constrained communication patterns. That is, people who needed to work closely together had to be located conveniently to each other. Now, though, as noted above, geography plays a more limited role in determining communication convenience.

Consequently, when subgroups form, geography likewise plays a more limited role than it did even 20 years ago. By employing modern communications technologies, we gain freedom to define subgroups that more closely produce a homomorphism between the work underway and the subgroup structure.

Last words

Meanwhile, while Subgroup A does its work, other subgroups might "form, develop, and adjourn in parallel with Subgroup A, though not necessarily in synchrony. In very large groups, a subgroup "foam" might develop, with each subgroup progressing through its own Tuckman/Jensen stages at its own rate. Potentially, at any given time, one subgroup or another might always be Storming. To an outside observer, the larger group might appear to be constantly Storming, and so chaotic as to provide a counterexample to Tuckman's model of group development, when actually Tuckman's model is being confirmed many times over, subgroup-by-subgroup.  Top    Next Issue

Are your projects always (or almost always) late and over budget? Are your project teams plagued by turnover, burnout, and high defect rates? Turn your culture around. Read 52 Tips for Leaders of Project-Oriented Organizations, filled with tips and techniques for organizational leaders. Order Now!

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

Conventional Foolishness

Every specialization has a set of beliefs, often called "conventional wisdom." When these beliefs are so obvious that they're unquestioned and even unnoticed, there's an opportunity to leap ahead of the pack — by questioning the conventional wisdom.

Flanking Maneuvers

Historically, military logistics practice has provided a steady stream of innovations to many fields, including project management. But project managers can learn even more if we investigate battlefield tactics.

Begging the Question

Begging the question is a common, usually undetected, rhetorical fallacy. It leads to unsupported conclusions and painful places we just can't live with. What can we do when it happens?

Decisions, Decisions: II

Most of us have participated in group decision making. The process can be frustrating and painful, but it can also be thrilling. What processes do groups use to make decisions?

Congruent Decision Making: II

Decision makers who rely on incomplete or biased information are more likely to make decisions that don't fit the reality of their organizations. Here's Part II of a framework for making decisions that fit.

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming February 26: Devious Political Tactics: Bad Decisions

When workplace politics influences the exchanges that lead to important organizational decisions, we sometimes make decisions for reasons other than the best interests of the organization. Recognizing these tactics can limit the risk of bad decisions. Available here and by RSS on February 26.

And on March 5: On Begging the Question

Some of our most expensive wrong decisions have come about because we've tricked ourselves as we debated our options. The tricks sometimes arise from rhetorical fallacies that tangle our thinking. One of the trickiest is called Begging the Question. Available here and by RSS on March 5.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info