HN Reader

I think the closest that this has come is in the form of GitLab, which pretty famously did a ton of the corporate work in the format of a very open Handbook (https://handbook.gitlab.com/)

In the early years, it was extremely, extremely open and comprehensive. I've definitely looked through it when I wasn't sure how to handle something at work.

The main problem here is that real people operate in fuzzy domains. Snapping them into place "with code" won't magically resolve the gray areas inherent to the most valuable real workflows.

Think about the prized "high agency worker." What makes them desirable is the willingness and ability to make well informed, unilateral decisions on matters that are likely not yet organizationally codified, or codified in a way that is "wrong" for the task at hand.

Also, the reason terraform works is because it is _operational_. As in, it's actual code that runs. If it was mere documentation, it would drift like nobody's business. In order to make "organizational code" operational, you would need enforcement (a compliance team?) manually keeping the documentation in sync with reality in all of the meat and thought spaces where real work happens.

The only place where this can plausibly be automated is in digital spaces. In fact, I'm surprised the article doesn't go there: "organizational code" starts feeling way more plausible as definition for AI agents than for real people, specifically because agents are operationalized in digital spaces, where enforcement can be automated.

I love the vision, but it glosses over the most important difference between Infrastructure and Companies.

Infrastructure as code is prescriptive. The code is the source of truth, and the world gets crested from it.

Company as code is descriptive. It is constantly catching up to meat-space, rather than creating it. Changes are gradual instead of instant roll-outs. Patterns change over time and only get documented later.

Making the company code prescriptive would require an insane amount of discipline that might be more stifling and restrictive than it is freeing.

I do this, more or less, for my small law firm. Employee and client information are stored in Recfiles and accessed with GNU Recutils. Adding or changing is a pull request, and all sorts of GitHub actions run. Works pretty well!

Thanks for sharing!

I wrote this post some time ago, and more recently built a thing to do roughly this for my small business: https://github.com/42futures/firm

Had it in practice for about 4 months now and happy so far. It works for me, at my small scale. Hoping to share a follow-up with lessons learned soon.

I think that it is a narrow view of a "developer" that imagine reinventing what basically already exist in decade with HR/"people management" management software that are widely distributed. It is sometimes also done by big ERP and basically available in any big directory and access management platform like Microsoft Entra ID (or whatever is the last current name) and co...

In some big companies, for expenses or performance reviews you have a terrible stack of relationship info and logic involved.

We could even say somehow that the first big entreprise software were creating with that kind of purpose for the modern IT area.

The worst limitation to all of this is users being lazy to input all the info that might be required, or updating it. For example, how many of you never filled their "address" in their record in the big company internal directory portal because it looks useless and is not mandatory?

Isn't this essentially just trying to reinvent ERP (i.e. what SAP has built a 207 billion dollar company at time of writing on and 90% of fortune 500 companies along with endless other large organizations use).

One can argue that ERP as code is higher value than whatever it is right now, but to act like this is a totally new idea is insane.

I think I see the problem… and a possible solution.

I think the main problem with attempting to document this is that the system would not be running off of it. Your infrastructure document is automatically read and drives the deploy (or whatever). But if you want to make a change to a human’s responsibilities, you don’t get the simplicity of updating your organization documentation and clicking “execute.” So this new documentation you propose would always be lagging documentation rather than the actual driver of organizational behavior.

But! What if it was? What if all the managers in an organization were AI systems? They would read diff in the org chart and it initiated the communication to the respective human employees.

I could imagine testing this in a coffee-shop level business right now in which the LLM is probably capable of all the strategy and management decisions needed to effectively run it, operating within the constraints of policies and procedures all cleanly laid out in documentation.

Eminently doable, yes.

Two notes:

- I'm not convinced the graph is necessarily cyclic. Often two codependents are actually dependent on some common bits and otherwise independent.

- this is essentially deterministic propagation of configuration (think dhall, jsonnet, etc) plus reconciliation loops for external state, terraform style — not dissimilar to how the rest of CI/CD should operate, in fact my view is this is an extension of CI/CD practices up the value stream.

I'm definitely strive for something like this when possible.

This is partly a description of the concept of the business ontology. Bob Muglia has been discussing this as the central problem to be solved in the data platform space for at least a decade. You could view the battle between the various vendors vying for a role in enterprise AI as really a battle over who owns the business ontology or semantic layer.

This article does a good job explaining https://metadataweekly.substack.com/p/ontologies-context-gra...

This is not a bad idea but this person basically reinvented LDAP. Everything he wanted to do is already in LDAP, much already in Active Directory.

It's all cool as long as you keep all of this up to date, and that requires a lot of scrutiny and discipline.

Once I had to go through a security audit at a job I had. Part of it was to show managing secret keys and who had access to them. And then I realized that the list of people who had access to one key was different than the list of the code owners of the service I was looking at, which was yet different than the list of the administrators of that service. 3 different sources of truth about ownership, all in code, all out of sync.

This is not a new or novel idea. I proposed such a thing at the start of my career in tech, and repeatedly propose it when I feel I have ears willing to listen.

The problem - and I do mean the problem, the only problem - is the threat this poses to power dynamics in the organization.

Compliance people do not benefit from their outputs being readily searchable and indexed like this, because it means there’s less need for them. Executives and leaders do not benefit from this, because they’re increasingly hired specifically because of their knowledge of various compliance frameworks. The people whose power derives from this knowledge and expertise are overwhelmingly the people in charge of the company and its operations, and they benefit more from blocking it outright than implementing it.

Don’t get me wrong, I love this idea. I love transparency in organizations, because it makes it infinitely easier to identify and remediate problems beyond silo walls. It’s peak cooperation, and I am all for it.

I also do not see it happening at scale while competition is considered the default operating mode of society at large. That said, I would love to work for an organization placing importance on this degree of internal cooperation. I suspect I’d thrive there.

There’s plenty of software that does this sort of thing, often industry specific but plenty that aren’t. You don’t see it “as code” in the raw like this article wants mainly because a company doesn’t deal with this information in such a non-integrated way, they do so as part of a more integrated whole. Monolithic ERP suites are probably the best example, and when done well it really does make a whole host of things easier and more seamless, like compliance modules that run defined routines that track with policy as implemented in operational modules.

I suspect hes designed a system for HIS company, which is in a data heavy industry. this doesnt apply to most other types of company, and I suspect when he tries to actually do it, it falls apart when he tries to define any requirement or obligation that stems from legislation. If the law was a coherent and unambiguous specification, thered be no problem, but the reality of it is messy and not so easily defined.

We tried this at Hats Protocol, I think you’ll find our approach very aligned! https://blog.hatsprotocol.xyz/organizational-graphs

We came at it from the perspective of DAOs, which was helpful at first but ultimately limiting. I think a non-blockchain version of this will take off. Tailscale is in a good position to do it.

Our earned insight is that you need to build the right primitive for delegation that works up and down the org. Our latest thinking on that is what we call a “Trust Zone” - more details here: https://blog.hatsprotocol.xyz/making-daos-work

You can ignore the “DAO” parts. Happy to answer any questions, I’m still very inspired by this line of inquiry.

My company has been working for some years now on usm.tools (https://usm.tools/public/landing/), based on very similar approach.

USM tools is based on Unified Service Management (USM) method, which provides the necessary concepts to take the the vision one step further. The core idea is similar however: everything a company does is a service, and services can be defined as data. The surprising finding from USM is that in practice it is possible to meaningfully define any service only through five types of processes.

As services are data, you can have multiple views on that data. And as all data is in standardized format, it becomes possible to make generic cross-references between USM and for example ISO27K as rules that refer to your data, and those rules can be evaluated. As a result, you can see your ISO27K compliance on a dashboard in real-time.

Societies across the planet can benefit from "Government as Code" for greater transparency and hopefully less corruption, fraud and waste.

If it doesn’t run, it isn’t code.

But things that don’t run have much less overhead than code: you don’t need to test then, update them, maintain them, they can’t really “not work”, people will adapt if they don’t make sense.

I /love/ this idea, but I don’t think it’s practical. Documents and business practices are about arranging people into semi-predictable organizations. The computing units of those organizations are people, and people run on text, not code.

Any non-digital system you describe "as Code" is not a source of truth, but a Source of Hope. The code describes the intended state, something has to reconcile it with reality.

This is the same as having it in unstructured documents. Which means the auditing is still required funny enough.

So yes, this could be done. I'd love to see what run in the CI/CD for a change. When someone works on the wrong thing, or breaks compliance IRL, how do you backport it into this? "Alice is a software engineer, and created this SaaS account with her email when the company was founded. The admin email can not be changed and she has admin even though another role should control that"

The approach described here - model things as graph - can really be applied to model any domains.

If you are into this type of modelling, you may find value in Mangle, a datalog-based logic programming language and deductive database library. You do not need to invent dozens of DSLs but can do it all in one. And without all the RDF trouble.

https://github.com/google/mangle

HN discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33756800

Talk at REBASE 2025 "From Facts to Theories" https://youtu.be/UjOEHSZDBH8?si=qAjnkBQfPKMVaOPW

If you want this to extend to all compliance checkboxes, I think it'd be an endless can of worms.

How do you enforce (with code) that all new applications created by various teams get added to the right inventory? At some point a human has to determine if an application is in- or out-of-scope for certain restrictions.

If a compliance framework requires certain hashing algorithms for certain types of data, how does your company-as-code system enforce that?

What I see with compliance is that a lot of it is the framework saying "you must do X and Y and Z", and the solution is to write a document saying "employees must do X and Y and Z" then share it with everyone. Then you take a screenshot of that happening (if even possible - you might instead just swear that it's happening).

I guess what I'm getting at is that there's a huge human element here to begin with. If the article is proposing a structured language for declaring your company and policies, how is that different from a Word doc? That is, unless your structured language is actually interpreted by a program that is capable of enforcing what it says. And I think building that enforcement system would be quite hellish.

As a programmer and founder, I think the idea is incredible, I would just change the understanding of "Code", given that what we've been hearing most lately is that "a markdown file is all you need".

I think it's not too far-fetched to think about standards, cultures, guardrails, compliance, etc. being documented, versioned, but more importantly, verifiable and applicable. In natural language, no code needed.

In the future, laying off half the company will be just one terraform apply away.

Is this not basically Azure Management Groups for policy rules, Entra ID for identity management linked to whatever HR system your organisation has? Since we're in the Microsoft world you'd probably sprinkle Cluedin or whatever it's called on top of it for mdm.

I don't necessarily recommend living in the Microsoft cloud, but it's what companies do in Denmark, so it's what I know.

Very narrow spec of how company can fit into code.Try Integrating ERP system in non-tech business. You will see how resistant the people are to use a software that streamline their business and need customization that fit their operation procedures or outright resistance because it would make things a lot easier and make them irrelevant.

On successful integration all they would use ERP system would be for signing in , chatting, producing invoices, the rest would still be done manually, if lucky in excel files.

> but a living, breathing digital representation of our company

It is breathing already, in the form of humans doing it.

No need to transform it into a static inflexible code thing.

The DSL described in this post really resonates with me. I recently worked on a programming language that uses similar structures [0]. It lets the user define entities and their shape (Role, OrganisationalUnit, Person in this post) and entries for those entities. It contains a small scripting API that can be used to derive information from these "facts". Company as code could definitely be implemented on top of this.

[0] https://thalo.rejot.dev/blog/plain-text-knowledge-management

If I had the capacity to take on this kind of modeling project right now, I'd probably lean toward Prolog or something like an OWL/Protégé ontology. Then it could just metastasize to the limits of my time and neurochemistry.

Amazon and Koch Industries are are probably the significant companies that come closest to this level of description and prescription.

You'd need something like probabilistic programming language to model discretion.

You'd want some way to compare organizational forms -- minimally build vs buy, but preferably also control via monitoring+specification vs selection+incentive alignment.

You'd probably need the kind of sensors and telemetry that no one would like, to avoid drowning in book-keeping.

Overall, what would the benefit be?

Two major factors I see a impediment to this: 1. Most management doesn't understand it and therefore won't champion it. 2. Those few that do understand it will resist it because it reduces the need for management and process.

This is similar to the Bible being in a dead language only understood by priests.

But how amazing would it be if everything from company policy to product specifications was in a format that could be programmatically accessed and tracked? When/if you needed a document you would access it from an artifactory where it had been generated and versioned automatically?

It may very well be that LLMs will push this idea to the forefront. PDFs and Word Docs suck for AI interaction. As we incorporate LLMs into our businesses it might be a natural progression to move toward databases, LaTex, code and source control for documentation and policy.

> Has anyone tried this yet? If not, why not?

Yes (in a minimalistic TDD like way?). [1]

I agree that the company as code can be tested without too much risk if you think about as "model your world drawing a circle around what you own".

You can be your own auditor constantly so that you pre-answer questions you would ask in an audit.

I would advise against the always tempting "we are the everything platform" because that rafely scales and makes you a bottleneck. You won't be able to keep up. It's easier to model the tribal knowledge of your own world knowing where the frontiers are and that can even be a forcing function to simplify and reduce externalities.

- [1] https://alexhans.github.io/posts/series/evals/automate-audit...

Edit: make sure whoever works on it is pain point driven and solves things for themselves and then you will build just enough. A world that is more programmatic and can tolerate fuzzy translations (MCPs/LLMs) and where you can test (evals) the level of quality you need can make this cost effective.

The softer approach to this I've implemented in the past is to ingest and link up org data (user accounts, groups, projects, etc) into one central DB and then provide an audit notifications or dashboards to authorized users. Examples:

    - Slack user detected with full access that isn't associated with a staff-grouped LDAP account
    - Group A in System X doesn't match the members of Group A in System Y)
    - Service Z provisioned, but their associated customer account is deactivated

These kinds of violations _can_ be automatically synchronized in a variety of ways, but I've seen that result in politically embarrassing outcomes (e.g. Sensitive user X is fired, their Slack account is automatically deactivated, people notice before some kind of staff meeting can be held to talk about what's going on).

I think documentation, in the form of code is the ultimate goal for everything. But, the problem of divergence remains. We already struggle to keep documentation on codebases (which we interact with on a daily) converged with the reality. On the business side, it's very difficulty to find the practicality of having these relationships documented, as it is a social problem. One thing for sure, is that it is hard to document social context in an business setting. Like, that one annoying guy that everyone avoids. It would be known socially, but these complex relationships cannot be written. Either way, I think it would be cool to reach this system eventually.

I would probably adapt a slightly different strategy/structure... probably using a git repository with markdown files and a mix of front-matter and TS with a DSL library for rules processing.

The cold storage is a combination of directory structures and markdown files with appropriate front-matter. This could then be queryable directly, or via normalization into a database that represents the same data. By being markdown, you can write rules/policies in a longer/legalize format that Management/HR and Employees can read and understand... port to web layouts for looking at and searching while having a structure that is reasonably developer friendly... the relationships would be similar, but each entity would be represented with a markdown file with its' own front matter and references to other documents.

Just my own thoughts on this.

This is exactly what model-based systems engineering tools like SysML v2 are designed for. Model-based systems engineering aims to generate _all_ engineering artifacts from a formal model.

Imagine it -- security policies, infrastructure, etc. all codified in a formal model.

- Push-button generation of ISO-27001 documentation.

- Push-button generation of Terraform.

- Push-button generation of SpiceDB policies.

- ...

There is _a lot_ of missing technology, but this is critically important because it will help us ensure regulatory compliance at far greater speeds in fields like nuclear and automotive. And it enables automated reasoning over the models, to make sure you're actually doing what you set out to do.

I always felt the idea of trying to align your code, policy, software and infrastructure so it's easy to do compliance is the bread and butter of devops and devsecops in a regulated environment,

Is this an article by someone who's just done ISO 27001 for the first time and realised that?

> However, when describing and managing our company, we resort to digital paper and tidbits of info distributed across people in the building.

The perception that ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is simply an exercise in document creation and curation is frustrating. It is not, but an auditor cannot be in your company for a year or three, so the result is the next best thing: your auditor looks at written evidence, with things like timestamps, resumes, meeting minutes, agendas, and calendars, and concludes that based on the evidence that you are doing the things you said you're doing in your evidence reviews and interviews.

The consequence if you are not doing these things happens if you get sued, if you get yelled at by the French data protection regulator, or if you go bankrupt due to a security incident you didn't learn from, and your customers are breathing down your neck.

All of the documentation in the world doesn't mean you actually do the things you write down, but we have to be practical: until you consider these things, you aren't aware of them. You can read the standard and just do the best practices, and you'll be fine. The catch is that if you want the piece of paper, you go to an auditor, and people buy things because that paper means that there is now an accountability trail and people theoretically get in trouble if that turns out to be false.

It's like the whole problem with smart contracts is that you can't actually tether them to real world outcomes where the smart aspect falls apart (like relying on some external oracle to tell the contract what to do). Your customers care about ISO because your auditor was accredited by a body like ANAB to audit you correctly, and that reduces the risk of you botching some information security practice. This means that their data is in theory, more safe. And if it isn't, there is a lawsuit on the other end if things go awry.

It's a lovely idea of course, and I applaud anyone who manages to make progress in this area, but my condolences to all the others that have tried and failed. Perhaps the enabling tech could be improved, but we've had LDAP and the like for decades, and many orgs simply can't/won't build the business around the tech.

IMHO, the main issues are cultural, and culture change is hard once an org is established. Even new companies will face issues, because business culture at large gets carried forward through people and interactions. Good luck getting execs to learn and conform to anything, they're too busy emailing confidential Microsoft Office docs to unauthorized third parties.

Computers have the ability to provide wonderful features like transparency and accountability to orgs and business processes, but just like security, we typically choose not to invest in those areas unless forced. Perhaps AI will enable some change by providing a generic interface that brokers interactions between humans and the organization itself, analyzing all inputs before forwarding to a destination.

Well developed and maintained Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) go along way towards repeatable human processes. The hard part is finding the organizational discipline to use/maintain them.

1. There are many organizations invested in keeping the disconnected status quo 2. The true things you want to connect are owned by giants that are slow and dont trust or need you 3. You need to play by the big players rules or get nowhere here

The images really detract from the subject.

I've used to do something like this, on a smaller scale and dubbed it "organization as code". As long as you have good enough providers for Terraform/Pulumi you can declaratively specify a lot of the interconnected stuff in a company.

I built this around GitHub as the indentity provider as my interest was declaratively defining repository access control, while also being able to use users public ssh keys to (re)provision services to get them access automatically.

isn't this what HRIS/ERP systems do under the hood? or am I missing something here?

I wrote a little on this same topic, automating away compliance with evidence, back in 2018 [1]. Some might find it interesting.

[1] "A Universal Lemma For Compliance" https://blog.eutopian.io/a-universal-lemma-for-compliance/

>Reimagining organisational structure *for the digital age.*

If you're just now thinking about it in this context, then you're about two decades too late.

I feel like this is kind of missing the point that companies are mainly a group of humans and their roles and responsibilities matter to them emotionally. Managing those expectations and feelings can only be done by other humans that feel empathy (good managers) and abstracting such relationships onto something that can be "versioned, queried, tested, and automatically verified" might create a shitty soulless place to work.

Every few years some technocrat looks at the organizational chart of a company and yells "why is this not a machine yet". And then the next 5 years people have to come up with elaborate ways how to do the actual work inside the artificial abstraction that the technocrats create because of this.

The cyclical relationship graph this article mentions is doable with Gel[1], my favorite database (the team building it recently got acquired by Vercel so the database is in community's hands now).

---

[1] <https://www.geldata.com>

I love this idea despite the real world operational challenges - most people with governance responsibilities in organizations don't want to code, and code is often too precise to model messy social/organizational context without constant tweaking, tending, and exception management.

I'm an advocate for bringing software culture to GRC, or as it's sometimes called “GRC Engineering”. While there are plenty of products to automate evidence generation for auditors, the underlying policies and documents that they prescribe are usually still old-school Word/PDF-style boilerplate junk.

I'm working on an open source project for security policies/processes/standards that map back to underlying frameworks (e.g. SOC 2, GDPR, ISO 27001, etc.) Docs are Markdown with YAML frontmatter metadata, interlinks generated automatically, site is published via GitHub actions.

The code is at https://github.com/engseclabs/graphgrc, and you can see an example published site here https://graphgrc.engseclabs.com.

Would love to know if others find it useful or have built similar systems.

I have started learning cuelang and there was nice webinar style video where the GitHub policies where defined as code and deployed with terraform. I immediately thought that such thing would be very valuable at auditing.

Interestingly, reading about Yegge's Gas Town got me thinking about this topic. Gas Town aims to create a "dark software factory" where agents organize themselves to build software autonomously with only high-level human direction, so Yegge created a weird rube goldberg fever dream of cats, preachers, diggers, mayors and god knows what else. But why? We already have real human organizations staffed and structured in particular ways that are able to deliver software, why not follow that pattern? With something like this, agents can start with a generic software dev shop and iterate on their own organization, instead of Yegge manually dreaming up what roles and relationships should exist.

I recommend book Accelerado by Charlie Stross:

Um.” Manfred finds it, floating three tiers down an elaborate object hierarchy. It’s flashing for attention. There’s a priority interrupt, an incoming lawsuit that hasn’t propagated up the inheritance tree yet. He prods at the object with a property browser. “I’m afraid I’m not a director of that company, Mr. Glashwiecz. I appear to be retained by it as a technical contractor with nonexecutive power, reporting to the president, but frankly, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the company. However, I can tell you who’s in charge if you want.” “Yes?” The attorney sounds almost interested. Manfred figures it out; the guy’s in New Jersey. It must be about three in the morning over there. Malice—revenge for waking him up—sharpens Manfred’s voice. “The president of http://agalmic.holdings .root.184.97.AB5 is http://agalmic.holdings .root.184.97.201. The secretary is http://agalmic.holdings .root.184.D5, and the chair is http://agalmic.holdings .root.184.E8.FF. All the shares are owned by those companies in equal measure, and I can tell you that their regulations are written in Python. Have a nice day, now!”

Massively complex cells of living organisms have their entire functionality encoded in DNA, so why can't a business encode their functionality, too?

This is perhaps a bit different, but Fossil supports storing more types of written company artifacts in the repo:

>One notable feature of Fossil is that it bundles bug tracking, wiki, forum, chat, and technotes with distributed version control to give you an all-in-one software project management system.

https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/whyallinone.md

Cybernetics

man, I can't wait to wrangle a giant YAML file to be able to take a sick day!

This sort of approach is likely intractable.

A company is more than the function of it's org chart.

There's business description being uncaptured sporadically in every Slack message, watercooler moment and email. (two of those are much easier than the other).

If you boil someone's actual job down to a HR job spec and assume that will suffice... you'll produce both absurdly long HR job specs and still fail to capture the entirety of someone's role.

Surely, in just about every company today, all of the examples in the article are already handled by databases and SQL?

The OP doesn’t understand the “gray zone” corporations operate. Pretty much every interaction, decision and actions operate in this domain. Ambiguity and intentional compartmentalization on a need to know basis.

This is essentiality the concept of LDAP/Active Directory.

Am I the only one who is mystified by this whole idea? People aren't CPU's. Good luck getting them to follow the code that you thought you were using to define their roles. On the contrary, what makes any complex system work is flexibility. And yes, if that calls into question the whole regulatory regime some companies (believe they) live under ... well, yes.

In the future there will be one giant AI on premise with many physical bodies made in our own image to micromanage the humans. All conversations are monitored, depending on the complexity of your query and who you are talking to tokens are deducted from your account. A complex double-entry book keeping system divides the tokens and quality of the response over the things the company should be doing. Things will be neither investor, employee nor customer centric but 100% AI centric.

"Code" is absolutely the wrong word here. There's nothing executable about it.

It's a model. And it will inevitably be incomplete and out of data, because the map is not the territory[1]

Of course, the same is true about the unstructured documents he laments, and whatever is done with those documents could probably sped up a lot this way, probably enough to justify the cost of building and maintaining it.

But the more advanced use cases he imagines run a big risk of making very costly decisions based on an incomplete or outdated model.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory_relation