Thread by @swardley

Well, I would in general agree ... though I use three different words. I would also note that in 15 years of building teams / companies with three different archetypes that there are some basic lessons to be learned ... /1

https://twitter.com/shreyas/status/1375491623308550144

Firstly, it's a model, it's not new (Robert X. Cringely talked of this in the 1990s) and as a model it's also wrong. So, think of the three archectypes as a useful guide but be willing to adapt ... /2

Secondly, the characteristics of the archetypes are different but people adapt, people change - so let people self select and change. All are important and which archetype "leads" depends upon the state of the evolution of that industry ... /3

Thirdly, because it is dependent upon context you need to understand your landscape and apply the model to the landscape. You need to consider the landscape will evolve (hence the need for a system of theft). You can't do this without a map ... you'll mess up without it ... /4

Fourthly, a map needs you to understand your users, their needs, the chain of needs, how evolved the components are, a willingness to challenge ... i.e. doctrine. You'll need all of this in place to mess with structures like above ... /5

Lastly, anyone can say "we need three types of people", anyone can say "we need to re-org" - these are the easy things that barely require any effort or thought at all.

Call them what you want, it matters not. The hard and challenging bit is in implementation.

Without that doctrine, without those maps, without that understanding of characteristics and how people change then ... it's just meaningless words ... pioneer, settler, town planner or visionary, craftsperson, operator or commando, infantry, police.