In the simple logic of computer code, one might assume that algorithms are immune to human bias. A loop is a loop in Amsterdam, and a database query functions the same in Berlin. Yet, seasoned engineers know this is a fallacy.
Code does not exist in a vacuum. It is written by people, and people are products of their environment. This phenomenon is often summarised by Conway’s Law, which states that organisations design systems that mirror their own communication structures. But what happens when that communication structure is shaped by centuries of national culture?
The concept of a "Culture Map" for technology is not merely academic. For Ximedes, a fintech and public transport specialist working across Europe, this is something we deal with every day.
When an engineering team values autonomy and flat management, traits typical of Dutch work culture, the resulting software architecture tends to be modular. It favours microservices and decentralised components. Conversely, in cultures that value hierarchy and clear command chains, architectures often lean toward centralised, monolithic structures with strictly defined interfaces.
Melvin Conway’s 1967 observation serves as the bedrock for understanding this dynamic. In the high-stakes world of financial technology, where reliability is paramount, the impact of Conway’s Law is amplified. If an organisation is siloed, with a rigid "Change Control Board" acting as a gatekeeper, the software will inevitably become rigid. It will rely on heavy, formal contracts between components, much like the bureaucratic paperwork required to change a line of code.
In a recent interview, Joris Portegies Zwart, CEO of Ximedes, notes that this was the standard in the early 2000s. Projects were defined by fixed prices, fixed dates, and fixed scopes. This approach treated software development as a manufacturing line rather than a creative process. The technical consequence was often "waterfall" architecture: systems designed to be finished once, rather than evolved continuously.
However, the shift toward Agile development introduced a new cultural variable. By replacing the Change Control Board with a Product Owner, a role integrated directly into the daily workflow, the communication structure changed.
Suddenly, the barrier between "client" and "developer" dissolved. Technically, this allowed for the adoption of Continuous Integration/Continuous Deployment (CI/CD) pipelines. The software could change daily because the human trust structure allowed for it.
The transition to this fluid, trust-based architecture is not uniform. It encounters friction when it crosses cultural borders. Ximedes operates heavily in the Netherlands, the DACH region, and Scandinavia, and serves clients across the EU, providing a live A/B test of cultural impact on engineering.
In the Netherlands, the business culture is famously fair, and decisions are often made by consensus. This aligns naturally with Agile methodologies like Scrum, where the team creates its own velocity. Clients here often view Ximedes as a partner integrated into their own DevOps teams. The resulting tech stacks are often cutting-edge, utilising experimental languages or cloud-native architectures that require high trust levels to maintain.
Germany presents a different landscape. Here, professional culture often places a higher premium on structure, hierarchy, and risk mitigation. It can be observed that clients from that region frequently prefer the fixed-price model. They view the external vendor as a "product supplier" rather than a "software supplier." They want a guaranteed output for a guaranteed price.
This cultural preference ripples down to the code. To satisfy a fixed-price contract, the architecture must be rigorously defined upfront. It discourages the experimental nature of true microservices, which thrive on change. Instead, it favours robust, well-documented, and predictable technologies, the likes of enterprise-grade Java systems with strict API definitions that act as digital contracts. The culture of risk aversion creates a tech stack designed for stability over velocity.
The challenge for a global technology company is not to force one culture onto another, but to build a "translation layer." This is not done with code, but with process. Ximedes tackles this by refusing to be dogmatic about frameworks. While Scrum is the industry standard, it implies a level of client involvement that not every organisation can support.
For a client unable to act as a daily Product Owner, forcing a two-week sprint cycle results in bottlenecks. The engineering team would stand idle, waiting for approvals that cultural hierarchy demands must come from the top. In these cases, Ximedes shifts its approach. It might adopt a Kanban system or a hybrid model that respects the client's need for control while maintaining internal agility.
This flexibility is technical as well as operational. The company uses a "workshop phase" to align the architecture with the client’s cultural reality. If a client needs a fixed scope, the team might architect a more decoupled system where the core logic is isolated from the volatile user interface. This allows them to deliver the stability the client buys while keeping the underlying engineering practices modern.
Ultimately, the most critical component in any tech stack is not the database or the frontend framework. It is trust. The difference between a fluid, high-velocity Agile project and a rigid, slow-moving Waterfall project is the level of trust between the vendor and the client.
In a low-trust environment, detailed specifications and strict contracts are necessary proxies for confidence. These documents become the blueprint for the system, forcing engineers to build to the letter of the contract rather than the spirit of the solution. In a high-trust environment, the "specification" is a shared understanding of the problem.
Think of this problem as hiring a plumber. You do not ask the plumber what brand of wrench they use; you simply trust them to fix the leak. When clients trust Ximedes to "fix the leak" in their payment infrastructure, the engineers gain the freedom to select the best tools for the job. They can swap out a legacy library for a modern one without convening a committee.
Culture remains the invisible map that guides every technical decision. Whether navigating the consensus-driven meeting rooms of Amsterdam or the structured boardrooms of Frankfurt, the successful technology partner is the one who knows that before you can write the code, you must read the room and address the human before you deal with the code.