Chapter 4 of "The Mythical Man-Month"

Brooks: "I will contend that conceptual integrity is the most important consideration in system design." Brooks starts with a discussion of the (aesthetic?) superiority of the Reims cathedral, in which unity of design was followed, vs others where multiple architects left their mark over the centuries of work. To achieve this, Brooks suggests dividing work between architects and implementers or even using the surgical team organization discussed in the previous chapter. Thoughts:

• Reducing the number of people doing the architecture does not guarantee integrity. Even a single individual can (and will) be inconsistent if they are not careful, e.g., not being consistent in naming or ordering of input/output arguments. It seems what's needed instead are principles, including the one from Brooks here valuing conceptual integrity, and rules derived from those principles, consistently applied (ideally enforced automatically).
• The best, most harmonious set of such rules is something to be discovered. Involving more people gives more chances to discover better rules. It may be necessary to have leaders to render decisions and arrange for writing up the final product, but the flow of information is not one way.
• Brooks anticipates the objection that giving free rein to the architects may yield something impossible to implement well. It looks like he thinks part of the answer is just to hire more experienced architects... but how are they supposed to get that experience in his system? Would he count experience gained as a subordinate?
• Even if a project does end up with one architect, it seems they should be able to justify their decisions to the team, including implementers, with reference to broadly agreed upon principles and rules. The analogy with architecture makes me think of an artist who might resent having their decisions challenged. So to does the idea that integrity is achieved by having only one or two individuals make the design decisions. But we're not going for art. We're going for something that works well. (I'm imagining some parishioners sitting crushed in the rubble of a cathedral that collapsed because none of the builders dared point out a design flaw. "It hurts to have these stone blocks crushing my bones, but I really do appreciate how they're all styled the same way.")

Maybe I'm reading Brooks as advocating for a more top-down approach than he really intended. However, his discussion on "aristocracy" does seem to justify this interpretation. // Edit: I was evitably not being charitable enough. The next chapter starts with the following, emphasizing the importance of communication: "If one separates responsibility for functional specification from responsibility for building a cheap, fast product, what discipline bounds the architect's inventive enthusiasm? The fundamental answer is thoroughgoing, careful, and sympathetic communication between architect and builder."