This is something I’ve always know about in the back of my mind when planning systems.  Chaining critical path dependencies can be problematic if there’s a fault somewhere and, if it can go wrong at exactly the wrong time, it probably will.  I’m always a fan of having a Plan B because there’s no better feeling than being able to jettison a work stream and move to a more direct approach.

Funny enough, I wandered right into this concept just now and thought I’d post something about it because it has actually been essentially postulated already.  Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the “Fallacies of distributed computing“.

They are…

• The network is reliable
• Latency is zero
• Bandwidth is infinite
• The network is secure
• Topology doesn’t change
• There is one administrator
• Transport cost is zero
• The network is homogeneous

In many ways, the wider concept is that, as humans, our understanding of pretty much everything is wrong.  Why?  Well, nobody can have 100% of the information on a subject matter at any one time, whether that’s prices, markets, commodities, people or their intentions.  As any part of that information could prove critical, it’s absence means you are de facto misinformed.

You’re potentially the victim of misinformation depending on what you then do based on the (mis)information given.

I think this is the reason I’ve always been a fan of working with what I would call conscientious objectors in a team.  People who will always argue the contrarian point.  It’s a klaxon that can help people wake from their tendency to group-think and over-comply.  Getting something done is not just always about repeating what we did the last time.  Great as a template, sure, but this time around?  As any environment changes, real-world or digital, so too do the possible new tools available, newer methods, better people, and the realisation that our thinking has been way too small from the start.

So, bottom line?  It pays to remind yourself how little you know.