Writing
Working notes on why organizations break in the same four ways, and what the systems literature says about it.
Working notes on why organizations break in the same four ways, and what the systems literature says about it.
Two lineages that never cited each other — Ashby, Conway, Brooks, and Beer's systems theory, and Scott Page's complexity science — converge on the same mechanisms.
Read →Complicated systems have parts; complex systems have parts that adapt — and that's why documentation alone stops working once a RevOps process scales.
Read →"Diversity" isn't one thing — Scott Page breaks it into four distinct measures, and most "too much" or "too little" arguments are really about different ones.
Read →Half of what keeps a scaling RevOps org functioning was never designed by anyone — it emerged bottom-up, the way structure does in complex systems.
Read →Dancing landscapes don't call for giving up — they call for an ongoing explore/exploit discipline most RevOps orgs never build, borrowed from metallurgy.
Read →Cascading failures don't need an attacker — highly connected systems can quietly organize into a shape where an ordinary event triggers collapse on its own.
Read →A complex system can't be controlled the way a complicated one can — the real skill is recognizing it accurately and responding to match.
Read →Good complexity doesn't come from maximizing integration and data, or minimizing for simplicity — it lives in the middle Page calls the interesting in-between.
Read →Scott Page's landscape metaphor for solvability — Mount Fuji, rugged, and dancing terrain — and why each shape calls for a different strategy.
Read →Detail level should track decision-making need, not seniority — a six-tier communication matrix for systems integration and subscription management engagements.
Read →Operations is variety management, not efficiency work — four systems laws (Ashby, Conway, Brooks, Reverse Conway) that make an ambiguous job definable.
Read →