When software engineers think about scaling, they think in terms of the order of complexity, or “Big-O“, of a process or system. Whereas production is O(N) and can be scaled by shifting variable costs to fixed, I contend that change is O(N2) due to the interaction of each new change with all previous changes. We could visualise this as a triangular matrix heat map of the interaction cost of each pair of changes (where darker shading is higher cost).
Therefore, a nightclub, where each new patron potentially interacts with all other denizens is an appropriate metaphor. Many of us can also relate to changes that have socialised about as well as drunk nightclub patrons.
The thing about change being O(N2) is that the old production management heuristics of shifting variable cost to fixed no longer work, because the dominant mode is interaction cost. The nightclub metaphor suggests the following management heuristics:
We take a variable cost hit for each change to help it play more nicely with every other change. This reduces the cost coefficient but not the number of interactions (N2).
We only take in the most valuable changes. Screening half our changes (N/2) reduces change interactions by three quarters (N2/4).
We arrange changes into separate spaces and prevent interaction between spaces. Using n spaces reduces the interactions to N2/n.
Like screening, but at the other end. We actively manage out changes to reduce interactions. Surrendering half our changes (N/2) reduces change interactions by three quarters (N2/4).
Where do we see these approaches being used? Just some examples:
- Start-ups screen or surrender changes and hence are more agile than incumbents because they have less history of change.
- Product managers screen changes in design and seclude changes across a portfolio, for example the separate apps of Facebook/ Messenger/ Instagram/ Hyperlapse/ Layout/ Boomerang/ etc
- To manage technical debt, good developers socialise via refactoring, better seclude through architecture, and the best surrender
- In hiring, candidates are screened and socialised through rigorous recruitment and training processes
- Brand architectures also seclude changes – Unilever’s Dove can campaign for real beauty while Axe/Lynx offends Dove’s targets (and many others).