The world is full of named principles that attempt to explain why people, projects, and organizations behave the way they do. Often described as laws, these are not scientific rules but concise observations about patterns that appear repeatedly in our work and our lives. Today, we are using eleven of these laws as lenses through which to examine how we manage time, make judgments, understand other people, and decide what deserves our attention. Welcome to Episode 211: The Laws of the Universe.
[Note: If you are reading this via email, click here to access the on-site audio player]
Today Andrew and I are going to be discussing eleven laws that give us a useful way to recognize what may be happening before we decide how to respond. We originally intended to narrow the list to ten, but Episode 211 presented an opportunity to keep the eleventh, and certain numerical coincidences are too convenient to ignore. We will consider what each law actually says, how it appears in architectural practice, and where treating it too literally can create problems of its own. The goal is to use these principles as prompts for better judgment when experience tells us something is going wrong and we cannot quite explain why. Knowing all eleven may also make you seem cooler at parties, although that result is considerably less certain.
Time and Scheduling jump to 06:40
Hofstadter’s Law: Experience Does Not Eliminate Optimism
Douglas Hofstadter, an American cognitive scientist and writer.
Hofstadter’s Law states that “it always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter’s Law.” The second half is what makes the principle useful because it removes the comforting assumption that experience will eventually make us accurate. Experience teaches us to add more time, then confidence steps in and tells us that we know exactly where to add it. Architectural schedules are generally built around the amount of time required to perform the work if information arrives when requested and decisions remain decided, which is a perfectly reasonable way to schedule a project that does not exist. We are very good at assigning a duration to drawing a wall section and considerably less successful at estimating how long it will take everyone involved to agree on what is inside that wall. The schedule includes the work we know we must perform, while most of the lost time belongs to questions we did not know we needed to ask. I have worked on enough projects to know that uncertainty is always present, yet I still catch myself treating contingency as something that can be added to the end of an otherwise reliable calculation. Hofstadter’s Law suggests that uncertainty is not waiting politely outside the process. It is already in the room, probably sitting quietly until the week before the deadline. A responsible schedule must account for the fact that some portion of the project has not revealed itself yet, even though we remain extremely confident that this time we have thought of everything.
- We schedule the work we can see; the surprises consume the time we cannot account for.
- Experience helps, but it can also make our estimates sound more certain than they are.
- Contingency belongs inside the project plan, not as a hopeful few days at the end.
Parkinson’s Law: More Time Does Not Guarantee Better Work
Cyril Northcote Parkinson, a British naval historian and satirical writer.
Parkinson’s Law approaches the schedule from the opposite direction: “Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.” Architectural work is particularly vulnerable because design rarely reaches a natural point where every possible improvement has been exhausted. Architectural work is not really finished so much as it is eventually taken away from us and issued. Give a design team three weeks and the work will require three weeks. Give the same team six weeks and there is a decent chance that someone will question the organizing idea during week five. That does not necessarily mean people are wasting time or avoiding responsibility. Additional time changes our perception of what the assignment includes, allowing optional refinements to become necessary refinements while decisions that could be made today remain available for another round of conversation. A deadline does more than place a date on the calendar. It establishes the point where exploration must give way to commitment, which is why moving a deadline without defining the purpose of the added time rarely produces the improvement everyone imagines. More time can make the work better, but only when we know what the additional time is intended to accomplish. Otherwise, the project simply grows until it becomes exactly large enough to consume it.
- Design can keep improving long after the improvement is useful to the decision at hand.
- Extra time needs a purpose, or the scope quietly grows to fill it.
- A deadline should establish when the team commits, not merely when it stops drawing.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Hofstadter’s Law and Parkinson’s Law are almost offensively well matched. One tells us that the work will require more time than we expect, while the other waits to consume whatever additional time we provide. Adding a larger buffer does not solve the first problem when the second law immediately claims it for another design iteration. A realistic schedule needs an honest allowance for uncertainty, but it also needs clear limits on what the team is expected to accomplish within each period. Time reserved for something going wrong cannot quietly become time available for making something slightly better, even though both appear as unoccupied days on the same calendar. Good scheduling is not the ability to predict every obstacle or compress every task into the smallest possible window. It is the discipline of deciding where flexibility is necessary, where a stopping point must be enforced, and how to keep one from consuming the other while everyone insists that the project is still technically on schedule.
People and Staffing jump to 15:38
The Peter Principle: Success at One Job Does Not Prepare You for the Next
Laurence Johnston Peter, a Canadian educator. He developed the principle with writer Raymond Hull
The Peter Principle states, in its original 1969 wording, that “in a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.” The language is dated and intentionally blunt, but the underlying point remains useful: people are often promoted because they succeeded in one role until they reach a position that requires abilities they have not yet developed. Architectural firms make this transition look almost inevitable. A talented architect becomes a project architect because they produce thoughtful, coordinated work, then becomes a project manager and is suddenly expected to manage fees, clients, schedules, and a group of people who do not necessarily respond to direction the way a drawing does. None of those new responsibilities are unreasonable, but they are also not advanced versions of the previous job. They are different skills entirely. The promotion is usually intended as recognition, although it can begin to feel more like an experiment conducted without the participant’s knowledge. The office removes someone from the work they have demonstrated they can do, places them in a role they have not been taught to perform, and then appears genuinely surprised when confidence and performance begin to suffer. The problem is not that the person was promoted beyond some permanent limit. The problem is that many firms treat promotion as the reward for competence rather than an assignment that requires preparation, support, and a different definition of success. A new title without the resources to grow into it is not really an opportunity. It is a fairly public test with unusually expensive consequences.
- Being an excellent project architect does not automatically prepare someone to manage people and fees.
- Promotion should come with preparation and support, not just a new title.
- Firms need ways to recognize technical excellence without requiring everyone to become a manager.
Brooks’s Law: More People Can Create Less Progress
Frederick Phillips Brooks Jr., an American computer scientist who managed major software projects at IBM
Brooks’s Law states that “adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.” The original language comes from software development, but anyone who has watched an architectural team receive emergency staffing two weeks before a deadline will understand the transfer. The existing team must stop long enough to explain the project, establish what has already been decided, and identify which portions of the work can be separated without creating new coordination problems. The new people are not joining the project at the beginning of the story. They are arriving during the final act and being asked to understand why the stair moved six weeks ago, which reflected ceiling plan is current, and whether the detail that looks wrong is actually wrong or merely the result of a decision no one documented. Additional people can absolutely help when the work can be divided into clear, independent tasks. The difficulty is that late-stage architectural work is often connected in ways that make clean division impossible. Every new person creates another line of communication, and eventually the people who know the project spend so much time directing the people who do not that nobody is accomplishing the work the rescue effort was intended to accelerate. The project now has more staff, more meetings, and somehow less time, which is generally the opposite of what everyone had in mind.
- New staff need context, which takes time from the people who already know the project.
- Late work is often too interconnected to divide cleanly.
- Additional people help most when they arrive early enough to take ownership of defined work.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
The Peter Principle and Brooks’s Law both expose the weakness in treating people as interchangeable units of capacity. Promotion does not automatically convert technical competence into leadership, just as adding another person does not automatically convert eight remaining days into ten. Both decisions can work, but timing and support determine whether they solve the problem or simply move it somewhere less convenient. Firms should prepare people for the responsibilities that follow a promotion rather than waiting for them to struggle visibly enough to earn help. Project teams should add staff while there is still time for those people to understand the work, not after the schedule has reached the point where panic begins masquerading as a staffing strategy. Neither law argues against advancement or collaboration. Both argue against the belief that organizational problems can be solved by moving people around on an org chart and assuming the desired result will follow. People can grow into larger roles and teams can become more productive, but neither happens simply because someone changed a title or added another name to the staffing plan.
Measurement and Priorities jump to 29:17
Goodhart’s Law: The Metric Eventually Becomes the Work
Charles Albert Eric Goodhart, a British economist who worked at the Bank of England and later taught banking and finance at the London School of Economics.
Goodhart’s Law is most commonly stated as “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” The principle does not argue against measuring performance, which would be convenient for anyone who dislikes completing a timesheet, but it does warn us that people change their behavior once a measurement begins carrying consequences. Utilization is useful when it helps a firm understand how time is being spent. Once a particular utilization rate becomes the definition of individual performance, people learn to protect the number, whether or not doing so improves the work. Project profitability can reveal where fees, staffing, or scope require attention, but a project manager held exclusively responsible for meeting a profit target may delay asking for help because the spreadsheet looks better without it. The metric continues to improve while the condition it was created to monitor quietly becomes worse. Goodhart’s Law is really about the difference between evidence and purpose. A number can tell us something important about the office, but it becomes dangerous when the organization begins serving the number rather than using it to understand what is happening. Once people know which outcome will be rewarded, they will naturally begin organizing their behavior around it. This is not necessarily manipulation or dishonesty. It is the predictable result of telling people what matters, attaching consequences to it, and then acting surprised when they believe us.
- Utilization and profit figures can reveal problems, but they do not explain them by themselves.
- People respond to what the firm rewards, including unintended consequences.
- Ask whether an improving number reflects better work or simply better performance against the metric.
The Pareto Principle: Not Everything Deserves Equal Attention
Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto, an Italian engineer, economist, and sociologist who studied unequal distributions of wealth.
The Pareto Principle states that roughly 80 percent of outcomes come from 20 percent of causes. The ratio is not a mathematical promise, despite the suspicious confidence with which people repeat it. The useful idea is that effort and results are rarely distributed evenly, which means a relatively small number of decisions often determine a disproportionate amount of the outcome. Architectural projects make this visible all the time. A handful of early decisions can establish whether the plan will work, while dozens of later decisions refine a direction that has already been set. The same imbalance appears when one unresolved condition consumes most of the coordination effort while the remaining issues move forward with very little attention. The value of the Pareto Principle is not permission to ignore 80 percent of the work. Buildings have an irritating tendency to require all of their parts. The principle asks us to identify the few decisions that will carry the greatest consequences and give them the attention they deserve before easier, more familiar tasks consume the available time. Architects are often very productive while avoiding the one decision that would make most of the other work either necessary or irrelevant. The 80/20 rule is useful because it forces us to ask whether our effort reflects the importance of the problem, or merely our comfort with solving it.
- Identify the few decisions likely to shape most of the outcome.
- Being busy with familiar tasks can be a way of avoiding the consequential one.
- The 80/20 ratio is a prompt to examine priorities, not permission to neglect the rest of the building.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Goodhart’s Law and the Pareto Principle create a useful tension because both concern priorities, but they approach them from different directions. Pareto tells us that some inputs matter more than others, which means we need a way to identify them. Goodhart warns that the moment we formalize that judgment into a target, the measurement may begin distorting the behavior we hoped to improve. The answer is not to abandon metrics or pretend everything deserves equal attention. The answer is to treat measurements as evidence that should prompt questions rather than scores that automatically provide answers. A healthy office can track utilization without assuming the most billable person is the most valuable, just as a project team can focus on its most consequential decisions without treating the remaining work as optional. Numbers are useful because they simplify complicated conditions, and they are dangerous for exactly the same reason. The discipline lies in knowing when a metric is revealing the work and when the work has started rearranging itself to satisfy the metric.
Judgement, Intent, and Institutional Memory jump to 40:28
Occam’s Razor: Start With the Explanation That Requires the Fewest Assumptions
William of Ockham, an English Franciscan friar, philosopher, and theologian of the late Middle Ages.
Occam’s Razor is commonly expressed as the instruction not to multiply assumptions beyond necessity. In practice, that means beginning with the explanation that accounts for what you know without inventing a complicated story to fill the gaps. Architectural offices provide plenty of gaps … a consultant has not answered a question, a client has gone quiet, or a contractor has issued an RFI about something we thought was perfectly clear. It is tempting to assemble a theory involving avoidance, disagreement, or a carefully coordinated effort to make our lives difficult. Sometimes the explanation is that the email went to the wrong person. Occam’s Razor gives us a reason to check the ordinary explanation first, although it does not promise that the ordinary explanation will be correct. A simple answer still has to fit the evidence. I find the principle most useful when a project team has spent more time discussing what someone must be thinking than it would take to call them and find out.
- Check the straightforward explanation before constructing a complicated theory.
- A quick conversation may resolve what an afternoon of speculation cannot.
- Simplicity is a place to begin investigating, not proof that you have the answer.
Hanlon’s Razor: Give People Room to Have Made a Mistake
Usually credited to Robert J. Hanlon, who submitted the familiar wording to a 1980 collection of Murphy’s Law sayings. There is much less biographical information about him than about the others on this list.
Hanlon’s Razor states, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.” I understand what the original wording is trying to do, though I would be careful about using stupidity as my opening assessment of someone I need to work with tomorrow. Mistakes, missed information, and different understandings of a conversation are common enough to explain a great deal of what goes wrong on a project. A consultant who misses a deadline may have misunderstood which decision was needed before proceeding. An employee who does something other than what I asked may have heard a different priority in my instructions, which is an uncomfortable possibility for anyone who considers themselves an excellent communicator. Hanlon’s Razor asks us to investigate intent before assigning it. That makes it easier to have a useful conversation and, when the error is ours, to recognize it without first having spent twenty minutes being offended. The principle has limits: repeated failures still need to be addressed, and some actions do involve bad faith. Starting with a generous interpretation does not require us to keep it after the evidence changes.
- Give someone room to have misunderstood or made a mistake before assigning bad intent.
- Examine your own instructions as carefully as the other person’s response.
- Generosity at the outset still leaves room for accountability when a pattern emerges.
Chesterton’s Fence: Understand the Reason Before Removing the Rule
Gilbert Keith Chesterton, an English journalist, essayist, novelist, and social critic.
Chesterton’s Fence is usually summarized this way: do not remove a fence until you understand why it was put there. In an architectural office, the fence might be a review step, a drawing standard, or a requirement that seems to add time without adding value. I have encountered plenty of procedures that deserved to be questioned, particularly when the person enforcing them could explain only that we had always done it that way. I have also seen a seemingly unnecessary step turn out to be the response to a problem the firm would prefer not to repeat. Chesterton’s point is not that old rules are wise. It is that we cannot judge a rule well while remaining ignorant of the problem it was intended to solve. Once we know the reason, we may discover that the condition has changed and the procedure should go. We may even find a better way to address the original concern. Removing the step before asking why it exists is certainly faster, right up until we have to reconstruct the lesson that created it.
- Find out what problem a rule or review step was created to address.
- An old procedure may be obsolete, or it may contain a lesson nobody documented.
- Understanding the reason gives you a better basis for improving or removing it.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
These three principles ask us to slow down at different moments in the same decision. Occam’s Razor asks whether we have made an explanation more complicated than the facts require. Hanlon’s Razor asks whether we have assigned an intention we cannot establish. Chesterton’s Fence asks whether we understand the existing response before changing it. None of these ideas relieves us of making a judgment; they help us notice what we still need to learn before making one. Architectural practice often rewards the person who appears ready with an answer, but there is real value in being the person who asks one more useful question before everyone starts moving.
Organizations and Attention jump to 53:50
Conway’s Law: The Work Reveals How We Communicate
Melvin E. Conway, an American computer scientist.
Conway’s Law states that organizations designing systems produce designs that reflect their communication structures. The idea began in software, but architecture offers a fairly literal place to test it: we organize a group of people to design a building and then issue a set of documents showing how well their work fits together. If the architect, structural engineer, and MEP engineer exchange information only when a submission is approaching, the drawings will eventually reveal those boundaries. A clash above the ceiling may look like a technical problem, but the more interesting question is when the people responsible for that space first understood what everyone else intended to put there. I have been in coordination meetings where the discovery was presented as though the building had changed overnight. Usually, the building was exactly where we left it; the information had simply been living in separate offices. Conway’s Law gives firm leaders a reason to pay attention to the paths between people, not just the names assigned to a project. If a design decision depends on several disciplines, those disciplines need a way to work through it while the decision is still being made. A coordination meeting can identify the consequences afterward, but it cannot return the hours everyone spent developing incompatible answers.
- Gaps between people and disciplines tend to appear as gaps in the work.
- Bring the right people together while decisions are forming, not only at submission.
- Look at the communication path when a coordination problem keeps recurring.
Parkinson’s Law of Triviality: Easy Decisions Get the Longest Meetings
Cyril Northcote Parkinson, a British naval historian and satirical writer.
Parkinson’s Law of Triviality states that the time a committee spends on an agenda item tends to be inversely proportional to the amount of money involved. Parkinson illustrated the point with a committee giving little scrutiny to an expensive atomic reactor while spending far more time discussing a bicycle shed. The amounts are part of his satire, but the behavior is familiar: a difficult, consequential decision may move quickly because few people feel qualified to challenge it, while a smaller decision attracts everyone because everyone can form an opinion. Architects have a particular weakness here. Put a complicated question about project risk on the table and the room may go quiet; put up two renderings with different brick colors and suddenly we have enough participation to form a second committee. The brick may matter, but the ease of discussing it tells us nothing about whether it deserves the most time. This law asks whoever is leading the meeting to notice when participation is being mistaken for progress. Sometimes the useful move is to pause a consequential decision until the right people can explain it clearly. Other times it is to decide the smaller issue and give the room back to the problem everyone has been avoiding.
- Familiar, visible decisions invite more opinions than difficult consequential ones.
- A lively discussion is not necessarily progress on the most important issue.
- Meeting leaders need to protect time for questions the room would rather avoid.
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
Conway’s Law and Parkinson’s Law of Triviality put responsibility on the people who organize the work. Conway asks whether the people who need to solve a problem can actually communicate while there is still time to shape the answer. Parkinson asks whether the group is spending its shared attention on the decisions with the greatest consequences. Those conditions will not correct themselves because the calendar contains a coordination meeting or the agenda puts the important item first. We have to make the necessary conversations possible, then keep them focused long enough to be useful. An office’s habits eventually become visible in what it produces, including the matters it discussed at length and the ones it allowed to pass because nobody quite knew where to begin.
Ep 211: Laws of the Universe
I like these laws because they give names to conditions we have all experienced repeatedly but may not have fully understood while we were standing in the middle of them. A project starts slipping, a meeting wanders toward the least consequential decision, or someone responds in a way that feels unnecessarily difficult, and the natural reaction is to address whatever is directly in front of us. Recognizing the larger pattern creates a pause between the situation and our response, which is usually where better judgment has a chance to enter the conversation. Knowing the name of a law will not rescue a bad schedule or fix an unhealthy office, but it may help us recognize why our familiar solutions keep producing familiar results. Architectural practice contains enough complexity without our repeatedly manufacturing more of it through habit, assumption, and the comforting belief that this project will somehow be different. These eleven laws give us a useful way to look at what we are doing while we still have time to do something about it. They may also make us more interesting at parties, provided we resist the urge to explain all eleven before anyone has finished their first drink.
Cheers,
Special thanks to our sponsor, Construction Specialties, maker of architectural building products designed to master the movement of buildings, people, and natural elements. Construction Specialties has been creating inspired solutions for a more “intelligently built” environment since 1948. Visit MasteringMovement.net to learn more.