In 1967, programmer Melvin Conway formulated an observation that at first sounds like a curiosity, but in practice turns out to be surprisingly accurate: organizations design systems whose structure copies the communication structure within the organization itself.
The logic is simple: any large system—a product, software architecture, even an internal process—is assembled from parts made by different people and teams. And the way these parts fit together is determined not by abstract engineering logic, but by how these teams actually communicate with each other. If two departments barely speak directly and coordinate everything through a third person, it is very likely that in the product itself, an identical redundant intermediary will appear between the corresponding modules.
A classic example from the software industry: a company with four isolated development teams will almost guaranteed produce a system of four loosely coupled modules—simply because the architecture physically cannot become more cohesive than the communication of the people who built it.
For HR, this is not an abstract engineering theory—it is a direct consequence of organizational design. Organizational structure is not just a way to distribute reporting and salaries. It is an architectural decision that invisibly determines what the company's product, process, or customer experience will turn out to be. If there is a formal wall of approvals between product and sales, the customer will almost certainly feel it at the junction of sales and implementation. If HR and line managers communicate only through a ticketing system, employees will receive exactly the same fragmented, impersonal experience when interacting with HR processes.
Practical takeaway: before redesigning a product, process, or customer journey, it is worth first taking an honest look at the organizational chart and the real lines of communication within the company. Often it is precisely there—and not in the product itself—that the real cause of fragmentation lies.