For several years I have been using Conway's law ("Any organization
that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a
design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication
structure.", Datamation 1968 and named by Fred Brooks later.) as a way to explain organizational/system dynamics. How if
the communication structure of the organization doesn't change then
systems that don't reflect that communication structure are doomed.
This looks to me to impinge quite nicely on VPEC-T in one very significant way.
in this sense has influence on trust. Choosing a communication style
can depend on how much trust there is in the organization. So serious
command and control is often indicative of low trust - the superiors
don't trust the inferiors to do things right so they will need to be in
every decision. Orders come down from the top..... Trying to put an
autonomous, event based, loosely coupled system into such a culture is
a bit tricky. I am sure we have all tried that and failed at one time
Compare/contrast with the naive kinds of systems where every party
thinks it trusts every other. What I would thing as the hippie way of
getting nothing done. I know this because I was one in the 60s. So
great autonomy, misplaced trust and great opportunity for abuse.
These are obviously extremes, but as is often the case we look at the edges to determine the space and then work between them. Using these boundaries can perhaps be a way of teasing out the T part of a VPEC-T analysis without it being overtly threatening.
My kitchen bloghttp://seabirdskitchen.blogspot.com