OCE.7:11.2 - Source Contributions and Boundaries
| Source line | Retained contribution | Use boundary |
|---|---|---|
Current FPF C.30, C.32, C.32.CONWAY, C.32.PAD, A.22, and A.6.REL | Exact holons, actual and modal architecture, candidate synthesis, four correspondence forms, decisions, structures, and relation obtaining remain distinct. | Apply these distinctions while the authorized owners make the organization and product/service decisions separately. |
| Joseph and Sengul, current organization-design review | Contemporary organization design is multi-approach and contingent; coordination and structure cannot be reduced to one representation or feature. | Select the local product/organization pair and test the relevant consequences before deciding. |
| Zani, Denicol, and Broyd, megaproject organization-design review | Temporary and interorganizational boundaries evolve, and integration of product and organization architectures is a distinct design question. | Qualify transfer from megaprojects before using the evidence to choose a lifecycle, correspondence strategy, or product change in another setting. |
| Brusoni et al., twenty-year modularity synthesis | Product, organization, and industry architectures co-evolve; causal direction and the value of fit depend on context, evolution, and the question being asked. | Recover local authority and any claimed direct influence, then compare candidates for the declared window. |
| Burton and Galvin, value and mirroring exceptions | Regulation and value capture can make deliberate non-correspondence and stronger supplier ties preferable despite product modularity. | Treat the result as evidence from one industry case; test whether its value and regulatory conditions apply to PumpWorks. |
| Conway, historical communication/architecture anchor | Communication arrangements can shape designed-system structure. | Use this historical anchor to ask about communication pressure; qualify the direct local relation and compare mirroring with the other candidate forms. |
| MacCormack, Rusnak, and Baldwin, historical product/organization architecture study | Comparable products developed under different organization forms provide evidence of architecture correspondence. | Test correspondence in the local pair and compare redesign consequences before selecting a change. |
| Colfer and Baldwin, mirroring evidence and exceptions | Mirroring is prevalent but not universal; exceptions and organizational forms matter. | Assess local adequacy separately; recover decision authority and, when realization is claimed, the actual performers and Work. |
| DORA, loosely coupled teams | Team independence, testing, deployment, and coordination load provide practitioner recognition and possible pressure variables. | Use this software-heavy practitioner guidance for recognition, then test local relations and ownership against the broader research and the organization’s conditions. |
Reopen when a recurring organization/product-or-service case needs another decision-changing candidate form, a current source changes the correspondence answer, or observed realization shows that the selected pressure and burden variables miss the actual constraint.