Live data from Hacker News

Company as Code

blog.42futures.com

101–110 of 135 posts

Re: Company as Code

#101
If it doesn’t run, it isn’t code.

But things that don’t run have much less overhead than code: you don’t need to test then, update them, maintain them, they can’t really “not work”, people will adapt if they don’t make sense.

I /love/ this idea, but I don’t think it’s practical. Documents and business practices are about arranging people into semi-predictable organizations. The computing units of those organizations are people, and people run on text, not code.

Re: Company as Code

#102

Two major factors I see a impediment to this: 1. Most management doesn't understand it and therefore won't champion it. 2. Those few that do understand it will resist it because it reduces the need for management and process. This is similar to the Bible being in a dead language only understood by priests. But how amazing would it be if everything from company policy to product specifications was in a format that cou…

The New Testament is actually in Greek, if you go to any church in Greece they are reading from it in the original language and people understand it fine.

Modern Greek speakers can NOT understand ancient Greek. And modern Hebrew is NOT mutually intelligible with Aramaic. The OP is correct and the two responses are nonsense. Also, in the 1500s when the Bible was translated to English, very few Europeans spoke Latin and if they did it was a very different Latin from the translations from the Roman era (pre 500 or so). Languages change over time and the Latin spoken by the aristocrats in the 1500s was very very different from the Latin spoken by the Romans.

Re: Company as Code

#103

Am I the only one who is mystified by this whole idea? People aren't CPU's. Good luck getting them to follow the code that you thought you were using to define their roles. On the contrary, what makes any complex system work is flexibility. And yes, if that calls into question the whole regulatory regime some companies (believe they) live under ... well, yes.

Also, would you even want it to? I've worked for companies with very rigorous compliance before. They are dead companies walking in most cases. As soon and their business model required/requires any significant change, they are toast. This is because these types of rules can't possibly cover all cases, just the ones the managers know about. Innovation requires flexibility and creativity and rules based systems are the opposite of that. By their very nature, they introduce the exact situations the rules can't cover.

Re: Company as Code

#104
Amazon and Koch Industries are are probably the significant companies that come closest to this level of description and prescription.

You'd need something like probabilistic programming language to model discretion.

You'd want some way to compare organizational forms -- minimally build vs buy, but preferably also control via monitoring+specification vs selection+incentive alignment.

You'd probably need the kind of sensors and telemetry that no one would like, to avoid drowning in book-keeping.

Overall, what would the benefit be?

Re: Company as Code

#105

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen. The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization. Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need…

Any books about workgroup power dynamics ? i'm fascinated (morbidly in a way) by that

Keith Johnstone: Impro

Re: Company as Code

#106

My company has been working for some years now on usm.tools ( https://usm.tools/public/landing/ ), based on very similar approach. USM tools is based on Unified Service Management (USM) method, which provides the necessary concepts to take the the vision one step further. The core idea is similar however: everything a company does is a service, and services can be defined as data. The surprising finding from USM is t…

Would you be able to share more? I lead a tiny non-profit org doing data literacy mentoring and I've been meaning to move more of our process docs to Logseq. Although I probably don't need a tool of the level of sophistication of usm.tools, I could take inspiration from your core ideas for our homegrown system.

Re: Company as Code

#107
If you want this to extend to all compliance checkboxes, I think it'd be an endless can of worms.

How do you enforce (with code) that all new applications created by various teams get added to the right inventory? At some point a human has to determine if an application is in- or out-of-scope for certain restrictions.

If a compliance framework requires certain hashing algorithms for certain types of data, how does your company-as-code system enforce that?

What I see with compliance is that a lot of it is the framework saying "you must do X and Y and Z", and the solution is to write a document saying "employees must do X and Y and Z" then share it with everyone. Then you take a screenshot of that happening (if even possible - you might instead just swear that it's happening).

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a huge human element here to begin with. If the article is proposing a structured language for declaring your company and policies, how is that different from a Word doc? That is, unless your structured language is actually interpreted by a program that is capable of enforcing what it says. And I think building that enforcement system would be quite hellish.

Re: Company as Code

#109
I think documentation, in the form of code is the ultimate goal for everything. But, the problem of divergence remains. We already struggle to keep documentation on codebases (which we interact with on a daily) converged with the reality. On the business side, it's very difficulty to find the practicality of having these relationships documented, as it is a social problem. One thing for sure, is that it is hard to document social context in an business setting. Like, that one annoying guy that everyone avoids. It would be known socially, but these complex relationships cannot be written. Either way, I think it would be cool to reach this system eventually.

Re: Company as Code

#110

The main problem here is that real people operate in fuzzy domains. Snapping them into place "with code" won't magically resolve the gray areas inherent to the most valuable real workflows. Think about the prized "high agency worker." What makes them desirable is the willingness and ability to make well informed, unilateral decisions on matters that are likely not yet organizationally codified, or codified in a way t…

The most productive workers follow the intent of procedures and use a risk based approach to following or not following the details.
Post reply on HN