*There's nothing quite like reading design history to illuminate the modern mind.
http://www.melconway.com/research/committees.html
*Here's a very bright systems analyst from 1968 – you'll notice that the word "interface" has just become popular among the hornrimmed geeks of the period – who is using his analytical skills to describe why bureaucracies malfunction. Along with some cool period ideas like Parkinson's Law and the mythical man-month, he's discovered a phenomenon he calls "homeomorphism."
*And what's that? Well, "homeomorphism" arises spontaneously when a hierarchical bureaucracy divides up the labor-load and delegates its responsibilities. Since nobody in the bureaucracy can possibly know what the other units are doing, the components of the system will be designed inside bureaucratic turf-areas, then bolted together and pushed out the door for the public. And, those components will be mechanically connected in the very same way that the departments are politically connected.
*In practice, "homeomorphism" means that the designed object or service will become a smaller, voodoo-doll version of the organization that made it. It's morphed, yet it's the same, like a reflection in a funhouse mirror.
*Every department or committee has some duty, some turf, and some need to have a look-in about the component they contributed. So if the hierarchy has, for instance, a Department of Wheels and a Bureau of Polka-Dots, and that organization is tasked to produce a boat, it'll be a boat with wheels, and also polka-dots – and, if they're especially agile and competent, some polka-dot wheels.
*There's an atmosphere of comedy to this – after all, "Parkinson's Law" was supposed to be satirically funny – but the joke's on us, really. It's been a long time since 1968, and our systems, interfaces and lateral connections have multiplied beyond all measure. We don't have sturdy, stodgy hierarchies like this any more, but we do have a host of remarkably fluid networks running most everything.
*These networks are ALSO "homeomorphic" – like, relentlessly so. That's why Facebook's IPO looks like an out-of-control Facebook crash. It's why banks look like embezzling computer crime-waves. It's why Apple gear looks like stainless strokeable exteriors with secretive, don't you dare black-boxes inside. It's why open-source anything looks like work where people were really enthusiastic for a little while and then got bored and walked off and did whatever else they wanted.
*We've even got homeomorphism that soaks down to the level of language – where we once spoke phony, leaden bureaucratese, now we speak phony, airy netw0rk-jarg0n.
*The thing that makes this 1968 document hopeful, despite its cynicism, is that at least it's the dawn of another approach – the approach that led us to this dire situation nowadays, to be specific. This suggests that, somewhere we haven't noticed yet, there's a homeomorphic version of this essay – not "how committees invent" but "how networks invent," and what's wrong with that, and why things could be very different. I wonder where that essay is.
