In 2006 Ken Schwaber, co-creator of Scrum, publish a shot 15 point paper about the likely impact of Scrum on that organisations. He titled that paper “Scrum is Hard and Disruptive”. It discusses many of the same issues as Kane’s Law, Larman’s Law and Conway’s Law. Ken clearly understood the relationship between structure and power even if the article wasn't presented that way. 

To fully grasp  the implications of Conway’s Law, it is essential to understand the connection between communication pathways and organizational structure. Kane’s Law provides an important foundation here: an organization’s structure dictates the distribution of power, which in turn shapes how communication flows. These communication patterns are not passive reflections but active reinforcers of the underlying power dynamics.

Kodak was once synonymous with photography. The company dominated the market for decades, pioneering film technology and capturing the memories of millions. At its peak, Kodak was an industry giant, a trusted brand known worldwide. Yet, despite its success—and in many ways because of it—Kodak failed to adapt to the digital revolution, ultimately filing for bankruptcy in 2012.

88% of government payments flow through this system every year and it is what I've described as the beating pulsating heart of the federal government's payments. Before you get to the banking system, before you get to the Federal Reserve this is the heart, this is the artery that is making it all function. It is the most important aspect of the federal government even though no one's ever heard of it.

A recent post on Naked Capitalism had me thinking about how tightly interconnected the global banking system is, and the problem that can arise. The article discusses a recent IT outage at Barclays Bank, one of the UK's largest and most systemically important banks, which left customers unable to access banking services for nearly 48 hours. Banking failures are so common place at this point in time that I hadn't even heard about this particular failure.

In 1997, a fledgling DVD-by-mail company named Netflix sent its first red envelope to a customer in California. At the time, Blockbuster Video -a $6 billion behemoth with over 9,000 stores - dismissed it as a niche novelty. Blockbuster’s CEO, John Antioco, famously laughed off Netflix’s offer to partner, confident in his company’s scaled empire of brick−and−mortar stores. By 2010, Blockbuster was bankrupt. Netflix, meanwhile, had abandoned its own dvd model to bet every thing

In the early 2000s, Microsoft stood at the pinnacle of its dominance in the tech world. Windows XP had just been released to widespread acclaim, and the company was riding high on its success. But beneath the surface, a storm was brewing—a storm that would expose the cracks in Microsoft’s organizational structure and serve as a cautionary tale for companies everywhere.

Structure is the underlying framework that defines how an organization functions. It is more than just reporting lines or organizational charts; it determines how decisions are made, how information flows, and how power is distributed. Every organization, regardless of size or industry, operates within a structure that shapes its ability to adapt, innovate, and execute strategy effectively.

Kane’s Law ultimately suggests that structural changes are the most critical drivers of an organization's ability to innovate and adapt. Without addressing how power is distributed and decisions are made, no amount of vision, talent, or culture-building will lead to sustained transformation.

I'll confess that I have a difficult relationship with the words leader and leadership. They're very important concepts because why else would the be so many different leadership courses? But what exactly does it mean, and what do "leaders" do differently from everyone else? What explicit behaviors, responsibilities or actions define leadership?

This understanding about the relationship between structure and power, and the how a company innovates is only useful if we can make some reasonable predictions and observations.

In the context of Kane’s Law, power refers to the ability within an organization to influence decisions, control resources, and drive strategic direction. It is not simply about formal authority tied to titles or hierarchy, but rather how decision-making authority is distributed within the structure of an organization and how this authority enables or constrains individuals or teams to act, innovate, or adapt.

Kane's Law and Corollays.

Proposing Kane's Law: "The structure of an organization dictates the distribution of power, decision-making authority, and the organization’s capacity for innovation or adaptation. Without addressing structural patterns, efforts to change systems, culture, or power dynamics will be superficial and ultimately unsustainable."

Over the past several weeks, I’ve been digging into themes around organizational structure, resistance to change, and the obstacles to transformation. I started with Larman's Laws, then moved to Conway's Law, and most recently covered Ken Schwaber’s article "Scrum is Hard and Disruptive." Each one echoes variations on a similar theme. Now, it’s time to examine how these ideas align—and reveal the core barriers to meaningful change.

In "Scrum is Hard and Disruptive," Ken doesn’t sugarcoat things. He argues that Scrum isn’t just a tool for boosting productivity but a disruptive force that intentionally surfaces the messier aspects of organizations. It’s designed to expose inefficiencies and outdated practices—areas most companies would rather avoid.

Conway’s Law and Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior both explore the relationship between an organization's structure and the outcomes it produces, particularly in terms of system design and the success or failure of change initiatives like Agile transformations. There is absolutely some commonality between both Conway's Law and Larman's Laws, but how are they similar or different?

What is Conway's Law? Conway's Law, formulated by computer scientist Melvin Conway in 1967, states: Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure.

7 unexpected or controversial implications of Larman’s Laws of Organizational Behavior.

Agile transformations often encounter significant resistance. This resistance can come from various levels within an organization—senior leadership, middle management, or even the teams themselves. Understanding and overcoming this resistance is crucial for the success of any Agile transformation.