Scaffolding over Frameworks.

There's too many frameworks and too little thinking about appropriate use of scaffolding, and I don't think we even discuss the differences or deliberately chose between them.

Let me explain, I'll start with how I understand the words.

Scaffolding is a temporary structure put in place to let something else come into existence it's then removed or absorbed by the new.

You don't keep the scaffolding once the facade is renovated, the artificial graft tissue is dissolved the mold removed once the thing has set.

Frameworks are integral to the thing, they're intended to become the bearing structure.

The new might "hang of" the framework, it might cover it. But the framework lives on as part of it, indefinitely.

Like the frame of a house, it's inseparable from the end result.

In org design I think this has wide ranging implications.
If you build around a framework that will need to be internal, and it will guide and support the work.

The result will also be governed by the framework.

Scaffold thinking, if you manage to avoid the "persistent crutch" trap and actually manage to create something self sufficient and viable will be governed by other forces.

Its creation was guided but the result is now governed by other forces.

Programmers have a similar distinction usually phrased something like "The difference between a library and a framework is that you call a library and the a framework calls you".

These dynamics generate very different models over time.

I guess it's recopies and heuristics all over again.
I'm just not a framework flavored guy but I do see many highly value applications of scaffolding and hope that if we more explicitly see things through that lens we can also judge when to remove the now unnecessary support.