Talk:Conway's law

message: In the "Supporting Evidence" section, the quote from Harvard Business School's study is cited as coming from reference #6, a PDF of a paper they published about the topic. However, in 2011 the paper was updated and the quote on this page is no longer in the text. There is a new quote with a similar meaning:
Should we update the quote or link to a 2008 version of the paper as the reference?
I have updated the quotes to reflect the new wording in the 2011 paper.Chrisma0 (talk) 13:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote No Longer in Cited Harvard Paper 

message: I first heard this law referred to as the mirroring hypothesis", and several of the papers references use this name as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.255 (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --VAuroch (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  should "mirroring hypothesis" link here 

message: Re: Edit history per: 'Removed "colloquial terms" - it's badly written and not necessary'
Why is not necessary? The introduction is too wordy and indirect to capture in the essence of the idea. The colloquial reinterpretation was intended to make it easier reading for average humans instead of just business or English majors. If the colloquial statement is "poorly written", then please re-write it better rather than outright delete. The baby was tossed out with the bathwater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.233.255.212 (talk • contribs) 
Here's the statement in question:
In colloquial terms, it's generally saying software ends up "shaped like" the organizational structure it's designed in or for.
How about this re-wording:
In colloquial terms, it's generally saying software ends up "shaped like" the organizational structure it's designed in or designed for.
We could attempt to clarify what "shaped like" means, but I don't know how to do such without destroying the colloquial nature of it, which is the goal of the phrase in the first place. Being technically precise, and communicating sufficiently to a non-technical audience are sometimes conflicting goals. Suggestions welcomed. As it stands, I find "shaped like" good enough for now and shall still lobby to have it put back despite a better alternative not yet being found.
I will put it back on November 2019 unless somebody objects.
146.233.255.212 (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colloquial Interpretation Removal 

message: "Notably, the hypothesis predicts correspondence but does not impose a direction of causality: effects may flow from organizational  structure to technical design (Henderson and Clark, 1990); from technical design to organizational structure (Chandler, 1977); or in both directions (Baldwin and Clark, 2000; Fixson and Park, 2007)."
Source: "The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions", Lyra J. Colfer, Carliss Y. Baldwin   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisma0 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, as the section Interpretations. --VAuroch (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes on direction of causality 

message: The corollary about long-lived projects - software which persists and is reusable will include both present and past organizational structures - is relevant but hard to cite. Original from the Youtube recording of the talk to the Technical University of Madrid is cited, but suboptimal. Some screenshots which could illustrate this better are collected in this Imgur album. --184.23.20.208 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure Over Time examples 

message: The article cites several studies that support "Conway's law". 171.20.64.8 (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not an adage