Software Defined Culture, Part 0

February 18, 2018

This five-part series of posts covers a talk titled Software Defined Culture that I gave at DevOps Days Philadelphia 2016, GOTO Chicago 2017, and Velocity San Jose 2017. I think the talk got better and each time I iterated on it. The talk was full of dumb jokes and silly gifs, whereas these posts will remove most of the gags and maybe clarify a couple of points. As a talk there's a limit to how deep I could go on any given topic, but having this here in blog format will give me a framework on which to hang some upcoming topics.

First, a warning. These posts will get a bit ranty. I'm talking about culture and the decisions we make around technical choices. But we have to be careful talking about culture. It's easy (especially as technologists) to be incredibly tone deaf when talking about culture. It's easy to make assumptions that your experiences are the same as other people's experiences. So for these posts, keep in mind that they're based on my experiences working mostly in small and mid-size organizations, working with enterprise developers in customer organizations, and being part of the technical communities I've been a part of personally. Your mileage may vary.

Second, some disclaimers. I'm going to quote a few people in these posts, but none of these people would necessarily endorse any particular position I'm making here. I'm also going to poke some fun at various technologies. These are all technologies I've personally worked with. So if I'm not making fun of your favorite technology, it's not because it's necessarily any good but just that I haven't worked with it before.

If you'd like to skip ahead to the rest of the series:

  1. Part 1: Build for Reliability
  2. Part 2: Build for Operability
  3. Part 3: Build for Observability
  4. Part 4: Build for Responsibility

Shipping the Org Chart

My friend and former colleague Bridget Kromhout is fond of saying "containers won't fix your broken culture". And she's right. Ryn Daniels, one of the authors of Effective DevOps, said in their keynote at Velocity NY 2016 that "tools won't fix your broken culture." And they're right.

This is the essence of the problem we face as technologists trying to improve our organizations. We have an embarrassment of technical tooling and best practices, but none of it really fixes our human problems. Hell, most of the time it barely fixes our technical problems, so how would we expect it to fix our technical problems?

I live in Philadelphia, and like many communities we have a Slack, and there's a devops channel. And every few months it seems we get an exchange like this:

Slack channel

And, sure, maybe this response could be a little more constructive. But the point is that many people are confusing "devops tools" for a model of working. Simply using the tools by themselves doesn't mean you're going to make the cultural transformation you might be looking to make. So often tooling is treated like a kind of a spiritual bypass — "I'm using Docker, so I'm doing The DevOps".

Part of the reason this doesn't work is because of something called Conway's Law, which was coined by Melvin Conway in his 1967 paper How Do Committees Invent?

"Any organization that designs a system (defined more broadly here than just information systems) will inevitably produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure."

It's important to keep in mind here that "system" doesn't just mean the technical system it also means the cultural system.

Chaotic Feedback

Human beings are the biggest distributed system. Or as Andrew Clay Shafer likes to say, organizations are a "socio-technical system." But like all complex systems, cultural systems are subject to chaotic feedback mechanisms. Subtle disturbances in equilibrium over time can build up to have outsized effects. Could we use these mechanisms to make technical choices to improve our culture?

Instinctively we all know that making bad technical choices can influence our culture. We know that if we don't build for observability, the operations team will be frustrated with the developers who are making them fly blind. We know that if don't build for self-serviceability, the development teams will hate the operations team for saying "no" all the time. We know that we don't build for flexibility, the production management team will frustrated with the inability of the development team to react quickly to changing market conditions.

If you were up all night every night over the weekend because PagerDuty was sending alerts over some crap deployments, then on Monday the team is going to be tired and maybe even cranky with each other. In an org where there's a separate operations team, the operators trust will be eroded every time they get paged unnecessarily. That erosion of trust is a technical decision influencing your culture.

Last April, Bill Higgins at IBM had a great blog post where he was talking about bringing new tools to a project team to catalyze a change in the way the team organized. He had great results, and it leads to him using the word "magic" a lot to describe the impact:

"The magic is in the new, better practices that the tools enable. A tool is a vehicle for practices. Practices directly shape habits and tacit assumptions. Habits and tacit assumptions are the foundations of culture."

The idea that he keeps coming back to was that all these tools had amazing surface usability but the magic was actually about the new methods and collaboration that they generated. GitHub is "just a pretty web UI on git", right? But what it enables is a workflow around peer review, collaborative software development, and communal ownership of code. Slack is "just a pretty web UI on IRC", right? But unlike IRC, you can get non-technical people to use it. Slack channels become a place where technical teams (and their bots!) and non-technical teams can share a common medium of communication.

Culture influences tools but we can clearly see that tools can influence culture as well. This back-and-forth was illustrated nicely by Avi Vig in an AMA on Reddit (of all places) about his experience as an operations engineer at Etsy:

"A lot of CD is to do with culture, much more than tools... Once you have the culture moving in the right direction, where developers are happy pushing code and owning software problems, and operations teams are OK letting go of the control and working with developers, the tools become less important."

If we know our technical choices can influence our culture, how can we make technical choices that will reinforce the values that we want in our organizations? I've come up with four guidelines for technical decision making which I'm going to grandiosely call the "4 principles of software defined culture." The remaining posts in this series will hit on each of these:

  1. Part 1: Build for Reliability
  2. Part 2: Build for Operability
  3. Part 3: Build for Observability
  4. Part 4: Build for Responsibility

© Timothy Gross

Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under Creative Common Attribution 3.0 Unported License. The code of this blog and all code content is licensed under the MIT license.