Self-Governing Teams
Summary
Empower cross-functional teams of 5-12 people with autonomy over their work style and organization. Support them with trust, clear boundaries, and emergent internal leadership roles.
Context
Cross-functional product teams need to move quickly and adapt to changing requirements without bureaucratic overhead. Modern research emphasizes the critical enablers of true autonomy.
Problem
Traditional hierarchical structures create bottlenecks and reduce ownership. Teams become dependent on constant handoffs and external decisions. Meanwhile, managers fear losing control.
Solution
Create autonomous teams that:
- Right-sized: 5-7 people optimal for dense communication and mutual adjustment
- Cross-functional: Include all needed roles (design, dev, QA, domain experts)
- Emergent leadership: Allow informal roles to emerge (mentor, coordinator, translator, champion)
- Trust-enabled: Management grants real authority and removes bureaucratic obstacles
- Clear boundaries: Own specific mission or product area end-to-end
- Customer access: Direct connection to users and decision-making power
- Outcome accountability: Responsible for results, not just outputs
- Conflict resolution capability: Internal mechanisms for resolving disagreements and tensions
Internal Leadership Roles (based on research by Hoda et al.):
- Mentor: Coaching agile practices and team development
- Coordinator: Aligning with external stakeholders and dependencies
- Translator: Bridging business and technical communication
- Champion: Advocating for team needs and removing obstacles
- Promoter: Educating customers and stakeholders about team capabilities
Conflict Resolution Mechanisms for Internal Tensions:
Teams need structured approaches to handle disagreements while preserving autonomy and relationships.
Framework for Team Conflict Resolution:
- Direct Communication (First 24-48 hours):
- Encourage one-on-one conversation between affected parties
- Use “I” statements and focus on behavior impact, not personality
- Establish shared understanding of the actual problem vs. symptoms
- Team Facilitated Discussion (If direct fails):
- Team member (often the Mentor role) facilitates structured conversation
- Use techniques like “Five Whys” to understand root causes
- Focus on team agreements and shared goals as decision criteria
- External Perspective (For persistent conflicts):
- Invite coach or manager to facilitate (not decide)
- Consider involving another self-governing team for outside perspective
- Use retrospective format to explore systemic causes
Common Conflict Scenarios & Approaches:
- Technical disagreements: Use time-boxed prototypes or “disagree and commit” with defined evaluation criteria
- Work style conflicts: Establish explicit team working agreements and revisit during retrospectives
- Priority disputes: Return to customer outcomes and team mission as tiebreaker criteria
- Performance concerns: Address through peer feedback and clear role expectations
- Resource allocation: Use transparent decision-making criteria agreed by the whole team
Escalation Boundaries:
- Teams resolve conflicts that affect only internal functioning
- Escalate conflicts that impact other teams or organizational commitments
- Manager involvement focused on coaching and support, not decision-making
- HR involvement only for policy violations or harassment issues
Forces
- Autonomy vs. Control: Teams need freedom while managers need confidence
- Size vs. Skills: Dense communication requires small teams, but cross-functional needs drive size up
- Trust vs. Risk: Real autonomy requires management trust despite failure risks
- Internal vs. External: Self-organization needs both internal capability and external support
- Alignment vs. Independence: Teams need autonomy while serving organizational goals
Consequences
Positive
- Higher ownership: Teams take responsibility for outcomes, not just outputs
- Faster decisions: No waiting for approval or management intervention
- Increased innovation: Autonomy encourages experimentation and creativity
- Better accountability: Peer accountability often exceeds managerial oversight
- Higher motivation: People feel empowered and engaged in their work
Negative
- Requires maturity: Teams need skills in self-organization and conflict resolution
- Management discomfort: Leaders must learn to trust and support rather than control
- Potential misalignment: Without proper boundaries, teams may drift from organizational goals
- Scaling challenges: Coordination between autonomous teams becomes more complex
Examples
- Spotify squads: Autonomous teams with lessons learned about need for alignment
- Amazon’s two pizza teams: Small, autonomous teams owning specific services
- Alexander’s self-governing workshops: Physical spaces that enable team autonomy
- XP whole teams: Cross-functional teams with all necessary skills
Implementation Checklist
Phase 1: Foundation Setup (Weeks 1-4)
Prerequisites:
- Leadership commitment to autonomy model
- Willingness to accept some initial inefficiency during transition
Team Formation:
- Define clear team mission and scope boundaries
- Ensure 5-7 people per team (max 12 for complex domains)
- Include all necessary skills: development, design, QA, domain expertise
- Verify team has direct customer/user access
- Establish physical/virtual team space (see Small Team Bays)
Authority Definition:
- Document what decisions team can make independently
- Clarify budget authority and spending limits
- Define escalation paths for boundary decisions
- Remove approval requirements for day-to-day work
- Grant access to necessary tools and systems
Phase 2: Capability Building (Weeks 4-12)
Skill Development:
- Train team in conflict resolution techniques
- Provide facilitation skills training
- Establish agile/lean practices (stand-ups, retrospectives)
- Build customer research and user feedback skills
- Develop cross-functional skill sharing
Management Transition:
- Train managers in servant leadership approaches
- Shift manager role from control to support
- Establish regular manager-team check-ins (not status meetings)
- Create obstacle removal mechanisms
- Define new success metrics focused on outcomes
Phase 3: Autonomy Activation (Weeks 8-16)
Self-Organization:
- Allow informal leadership roles to emerge naturally:
- Mentor (coaching practices)
- Coordinator (external alignment)
- Translator (business-technical bridge)
- Champion (obstacle removal)
- Promoter (stakeholder education)
- Enable team to choose their own tools and practices
- Let team establish their own working agreements
- Support team in setting their own goals and metrics
Feedback Systems:
- Establish direct customer feedback loops
- Create rapid deployment and measurement capabilities
- Implement continuous retrospective practices
- Set up cross-team learning mechanisms
- Regular team health assessments
Phase 4: Maturity & Scaling (Month 4+)
Advanced Practices:
- Team demonstrates consistent self-correction
- Evidence of proactive problem-solving
- Clear internal accountability mechanisms
- Successful customer outcome delivery
- Effective knowledge sharing with other teams
Organizational Integration:
- Establish Team API for external collaboration
- Connect with enabling/platform teams for support
- Participate in cross-team synchronization activities
- Contribute to organizational learning and capability building
Metrics Framework for Team Autonomy and Effectiveness
Autonomy Indicators:
- Decision speed: Average time from problem identification to decision implementation (target: <48 hours for team-scope decisions)
- Escalation rate: Percentage of decisions that require management approval (target: <15% after 6 months)
- Authority utilization: Frequency of teams using their granted decision-making authority (track monthly)
- Process adaptation: Number of team-initiated changes to working methods per quarter
Team Effectiveness Measures:
- Delivery predictability: Percentage of commitments met within promised timeframes (target: >80%)
- Customer satisfaction: Direct user feedback scores and Net Promoter Score (track quarterly)
- Cycle time: Average time from idea to user value delivery (track monthly trends)
- Defect rate: Quality issues requiring post-delivery fixes (target: declining trend)
Team Health Assessment:
- Psychological safety: Team members feel safe to speak up, make mistakes, and ask questions (quarterly survey)
- Conflict resolution capability: Time to resolve internal disagreements (target: <1 week for most issues)
- Shared mental models: Team alignment on goals, priorities, and approaches (quarterly assessment)
- Learning velocity: Rate of skill acquisition and knowledge sharing within team
Organizational Impact:
- Cross-team collaboration: Quality of interactions with other teams and departments
- Innovation contribution: Ideas and improvements contributed to broader organization
- Knowledge dissemination: Teaching and mentoring provided to other teams
- Hiring attraction: Team’s ability to attract and retain high-quality team members
Success Indicators
Immediate (1-3 months):
- Escalation rate drops below 30% of previous level
- Decision-making time reduces by 50% for team-scope decisions
- Team engagement scores increase by 20+ points
- 100% of team members can articulate team mission and boundaries
Medium-term (3-6 months):
- Delivery predictability exceeds 80%
- Team initiates 2+ process improvements per month
- Conflicts resolved internally within 1 week 95% of time
- All informal leadership roles naturally filled by team members
Long-term (6+ months):
- Team generates 1+ innovation/experiment per quarter
- Team provides mentoring to 2+ other teams annually
- Team contributes to organizational standards and practices
- Team health metrics in top quartile organization-wide
Common Failure Modes & Preventions
- Pseudo-autonomy: Ensure real authority, not just responsibility
- Isolation: Maintain connection to organizational goals and other teams
- Skill gaps: Continuously invest in team capability development
- Management fear: Support managers through their own transition
- Boundary confusion: Keep clear escalation and decision frameworks
Scaling Self-Governing Teams: From Startup to Enterprise
The Scaling Challenge
Self-governing teams face unique challenges as organizations grow. What works for 1-2 teams doesn’t naturally scale to 10, 50, or 200 teams without intentional architectural thinking.
Organizational Scale Patterns
Scale 1: Single Team (5-12 people)
🏢 SINGLE SELF-GOVERNING TEAM
┌─────────────────────────────┐
│ 👥 Cross-functional team │
│ 🎯 Clear product mission │
│ 🔄 Direct customer access │
│ ⚡ Minimal coordination │
└─────────────────────────────┘
Characteristics:
- Direct relationships with all stakeholders
- Informal communication and coordination
- Simple decision-making processes
- High trust and psychological safety
Implementation Focus:
- Establish basic autonomy boundaries
- Build internal capability for conflict resolution
- Create direct customer feedback loops
- Develop emergent leadership roles
Scale 2: Small Organization (2-6 teams, 15-50 people)
🏢 TEAM CLUSTER
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ TEAM A │ │ TEAM B │ │ TEAM C │
│ Product 1 │ │ Product 2 │ │ Platform │
│ │ │ │ │ │
└─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘
│ │ │
└────────────────┼────────────────┘
│
🤝 Informal Coordination
(Weekly sync, demos)
New Challenges:
- Cross-team dependencies and coordination
- Shared infrastructure and platform needs
- Consistent practices without central control
- Knowledge sharing across teams
Scaling Adaptations:
- Light Coordination Structures: Weekly demos, monthly cross-team retrospectives
- Shared Services: Common platform team for infrastructure and tooling
- Practice Communities: Cross-team guilds for sharing techniques and standards
- Boundary Management: Clear team APIs and service ownership
Anti-Patterns at This Scale:
- ❌ Premature Hierarchy: Adding managers when coordination would suffice
- ❌ Everything Shared: Making all decisions consensus-based across teams
- ❌ Coordination Theater: Meetings that don’t solve actual coordination problems
Scale 3: Medium Organization (7-20 teams, 50-150 people)
🏢 MULTI-CLUSTER ORGANIZATION
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRODUCT DOMAIN A │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ Team A1 │ │ Team A2 │ │ Team A3 │ │ Team A4 │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ PRODUCT DOMAIN B │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ Team B1 │ │ Team B2 │ │ Team B3 │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ENABLING PLATFORMS │
│ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ ┌─────────┐ │
│ │ Platform│ │ DevOps │ │ Data │ │
│ │ Team │ │ Team │ │ Team │ │
│ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ └─────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
New Challenges:
- Multiple product domains with different cadences
- Need for specialized platform and enabling teams
- Strategic alignment across diverse product areas
- Cultural coherence despite geographic or domain separation
Scaling Adaptations:
- Domain-Driven Organization: Teams organized around business domains
- Team Topology Patterns: Platform teams, enabling teams, stream-aligned teams
- Architectural Decision Records: Distributed decision-making with transparency
- Cross-Domain Forums: Regular strategic alignment and knowledge sharing
- Scaled Autonomy: Domain-level autonomy with organization-level principles
Critical Success Factors:
- Clear Team APIs: Well-defined interfaces between teams and domains
- Platform Investment: Dedicated teams building internal developer experience
- Cultural Scaling: Maintaining startup culture through intentional practices
- Leadership Development: Growing leadership capability within teams
Scale 4: Large Organization (20+ teams, 150+ people)
🏢 FEDERATED AUTONOMOUS ORGANIZATION
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ BUSINESS UNIT 1 │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Product Tribe │ │ Product Tribe │ │ Platform │ │
│ │ (4-6 teams) │ │ (4-6 teams) │ │ Teams │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ BUSINESS UNIT 2 │
│ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Product Tribe │ │ Product Tribe │ │ Platform │ │
│ │ (4-6 teams) │ │ (4-6 teams) │ │ Teams │ │
│ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ORGANIZATIONAL PLATFORMS │
│ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ │
│ │ Security │ │ HR │ │ Finance │ │
│ │ Standards │ │ Platforms │ │ Platforms │ │
│ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
New Challenges:
- Multiple business units with different strategies
- Complex technical architecture requiring platform layers
- Career development and knowledge sharing across tribes
- Maintaining innovation while managing risk and compliance
Scaling Adaptations:
- Federated Autonomy: Business unit level autonomy with shared platforms
- Three-Horizon Strategy: Balancing core, adjacent, and transformational innovation
- Internal Markets: Platform teams as internal service providers
- Cross-BU Learning: Centers of excellence and practice communities
- Distributed Leadership: Multiple levels of servant leadership
Scaling Implementation Roadmap
Phase 1: Foundation (Scale 1 → Scale 2)
Timeline: 3-6 months
Month 1-2: Team Autonomy Solidification
├── Establish clear team boundaries and decision rights
├── Implement conflict resolution capabilities
├── Create direct customer feedback loops
└── Develop emergent leadership roles
Month 3-4: Inter-Team Coordination
├── Implement light coordination structures (demos, sync meetings)
├── Create shared platform capabilities
├── Establish team APIs and service contracts
└── Begin cross-team knowledge sharing
Month 5-6: Culture and Practice Sharing
├── Form communities of practice for technical standards
├── Create cross-team retrospectives and learning sessions
├── Establish consistent metrics and success criteria
└── Document scaling lessons learned
Phase 2: Structural Scaling (Scale 2 → Scale 3)
Timeline: 6-12 months
Month 1-3: Domain Organization
├── Identify natural business domains and team clusters
├── Reorganize teams around domain boundaries
├── Establish domain-level autonomy and accountability
└── Create enabling and platform team structures
Month 4-6: Coordination Architecture
├── Implement architectural decision records across domains
├── Create cross-domain forums for strategic alignment
├── Establish platform-as-a-service internal model
└── Build domain-specific metrics and dashboards
Month 7-9: Cultural Scaling
├── Develop leadership capabilities within teams and domains
├── Create career progression paths that don't require management
├── Establish cross-domain innovation and experimentation programs
└── Build cultural practices that scale (rituals, values, stories)
Month 10-12: Optimization and Stabilization
├── Optimize coordination overhead based on actual needs
├── Refine team APIs and service boundaries
├── Establish long-term sustainability practices
└── Prepare for next scaling phase
Phase 3: Enterprise Scaling (Scale 3 → Scale 4)
Timeline: 12-24 months
Quarters 1-2: Business Unit Structure
├── Organize into autonomous business units with clear P&L
├── Establish federated governance and shared platforms
├── Create internal market mechanisms for platform services
└── Implement three-horizon innovation portfolios
Quarters 3-4: Organizational Platforms
├── Build organizational capability platforms (HR, Finance, Legal)
├── Create centers of excellence for cross-unit learning
├── Establish enterprise architecture and security standards
└── Implement distributed leadership development programs
Quarters 5-6: Ecosystem Maturity
├── Optimize the balance of autonomy and alignment across scales
├── Create sustainable innovation and experimentation cultures
├── Build external partnership and acquisition capabilities
└── Establish long-term organizational learning systems
Scaling Success Patterns
The Fractal Principle
Pattern: Each level of scale maintains the same basic autonomy principles
Individual → Team → Domain → Business Unit → Organization
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Self-Ownership → Team Autonomy → Domain Strategy → BU P&L → Org Mission
The Platform Strategy
Pattern: Each scale introduces new platform layers that enable the next scale
Scale 1: Individual productivity tools
Scale 2: Team platform services (CI/CD, monitoring)
Scale 3: Domain platforms (shared services, data)
Scale 4: Organizational platforms (HR, finance, strategy)
The Coordination Minimum
Pattern: Add the minimum coordination necessary for the next scale
Scale 1 → 2: Weekly demos and basic inter-team communication
Scale 2 → 3: Domain-level strategy alignment and platform teams
Scale 3 → 4: Business unit governance and organizational platforms
Scaling Anti-Patterns and Failures
❌ The Premature Bureaucracy
PROBLEM: Adding management layers before coordination needs are clear
SYMPTOMS:
- New management roles with unclear value-add
- Decision-making becomes slower rather than faster
- Teams lose autonomy without gaining coordination benefits
PREVENTION:
- Understand actual coordination problems before adding structure
- Try lightweight coordination solutions first
- Measure coordination effectiveness, not just hierarchy clarity
❌ The Platform Bottleneck
PROBLEM: Platform teams become centralized control points
SYMPTOMS:
- Product teams waiting for platform team approvals
- Platform team overwhelmed with requests
- Innovation slowed by platform standardization
PREVENTION:
- Platform teams as service providers, not gatekeepers
- Self-service capabilities with sensible defaults
- Product teams can extend platforms for their needs
❌ The Culture Dilution
PROBLEM: Scaling destroys the culture that made teams effective
SYMPTOMS:
- "It was better when we were smaller" sentiment
- Loss of psychological safety and trust
- Reversion to command-and-control patterns
PREVENTION:
- Intentional culture preservation and evolution
- Culture carriers and champions at each scale
- Regular culture health assessments and interventions
❌ The Coordination Explosion
PROBLEM: Coordination overhead grows faster than organizational value
SYMPTOMS:
- More time spent in meetings than doing work
- Multiple teams required for simple decisions
- Information sharing becomes information overload
PREVENTION:
- Measure coordination costs and benefits
- Design information architecture, not just communication processes
- Use asynchronous and pull-based communication patterns
Scale-Specific Metrics and Success Indicators
Scale 2 (2-6 teams) Success Metrics
- Coordination Efficiency: <20% of time spent in cross-team coordination
- Shared Knowledge: >90% of technical patterns known across teams
- Dependency Resolution: Cross-team blockers resolved in <3 days average
- Platform Adoption: >80% of teams using shared platform services
Scale 3 (7-20 teams) Success Metrics
- Domain Coherence: Teams can explain their domain mission and boundaries
- Cross-Domain Innovation: 2+ cross-domain experiments per quarter
- Platform Self-Service: 80% of platform interactions self-service
- Leadership Distribution: 50%+ of leadership roles filled by team members
Scale 4 (20+ teams) Success Metrics
- Business Unit Autonomy: P&L responsibility and strategic independence
- Innovation Portfolio: Active projects in all three horizons
- Cross-BU Learning: Regular knowledge sharing and practice adoption
- Cultural Coherence: Consistent culture metrics across business units
Technology and Tooling for Scaled Self-Governance
Scale 2 Technology Stack
- Communication: Slack/Teams with shared channels and bots
- Coordination: Shared calendars and lightweight project tracking
- Knowledge: Shared wikis and documentation systems
- Code: Shared repositories with clear ownership
Scale 3 Technology Stack
- Architecture: Service mesh and API gateways for team boundaries
- Observability: Distributed tracing and metrics across domains
- Documentation: Architecture decision records and service catalogs
- Experimentation: Feature flags and A/B testing platforms
Scale 4 Technology Stack
- Governance: Policy-as-code and automated compliance checking
- Platforms: Internal developer platforms and service marketplaces
- Analytics: Business intelligence and cross-unit dashboards
- Learning: Knowledge management and expertise location systems
Real-World Scaling Examples and Lessons
Spotify: The Scaling Pioneer (Scale 2 → Scale 4)
Journey: From 30 engineers (2010) to 3,000+ engineers (2020) Key Success: Maintained squad autonomy while adding tribe and guild structures Major Learning: “Spotify Model” requires constant evolution - what worked at 300 people needed changes at 3,000 Scaling Innovation: Introduced “Chapter” role for technical leadership without hierarchy Current Challenge: Balancing innovation speed with platform standardization needs
Basecamp: Intentional Scale Constraints (Scale 2 → Scale 3)
Journey: Deliberately stayed small (50 people) while growing revenue 10x Key Success: Proved self-governing teams can scale value without scaling people Major Learning: Constraints force innovation - limited team size drove product focus Scaling Innovation: “Shape Up” methodology for maintaining startup agility Cultural Insight: “Stay small, think big” as organizational philosophy
Amazon: Federated Scaling (Scale 3 → Scale 4)
Journey: “Two pizza teams” principle scaled across massive organization Key Success: Business unit autonomy with shared platform services (AWS) Major Learning: APIs and service orientation enable organizational scaling Scaling Innovation: Working backwards from press releases for product development Platform Strategy: Internal services became external products (AWS)
GitLab: Remote-First Scaling (Scale 2 → Scale 4)
Journey: Scaled to 1,300+ people across 65+ countries all-remote Key Success: Handbook-first culture enables async self-governance Major Learning: Documentation and transparency requirements scale differently remote Scaling Innovation: All company processes documented publicly Cultural Challenge: Maintaining connection and culture without physical presence
Cultural Scaling Patterns
High-Context Culture Scaling (Japan, Germany, Scandinavia)
Characteristics:
- Longer consensus-building periods at each scale
- Formal documentation and process definition required
- Cultural hierarchy respect affects team autonomy
- Group harmony preservation during reorganization
Adaptations:
- Extended transition timelines (2x normal duration)
- Formal mentoring and knowledge transfer processes
- Explicit permission-giving for autonomy at each level
- Cultural liaison roles for cross-team coordination
Low-Context Culture Scaling (US, Australia, Netherlands)
Characteristics:
- Faster scaling transitions with individual accountability
- Direct feedback and conflict resolution approaches
- Merit-based leadership emergence
- Market-driven internal coordination
Adaptations:
- Accelerated scaling timelines with rapid iteration
- Individual performance metrics and accountability
- Direct communication training for cultural sensitivity
- Competitive internal markets for platform services
Collective Culture Scaling (India, China, Brazil)
Characteristics:
- Group decision-making even in autonomous teams
- Respect for existing organizational structures
- Face-saving considerations during reorganization
- Extended relationship-building periods
Adaptations:
- Group coaching and team formation approaches
- Gradual authority transfer with cultural validators
- Celebration rituals for successful transitions
- Senior champion programs for cultural change
Scaling Failure Recovery Patterns
Recovery from Premature Bureaucracy
Week 1-2: Immediate Structure Reduction
├── Identify and eliminate roles with unclear value-add
├── Flatten decision-making chains temporarily
├── Restore team autonomy through emergency delegation
└── Measure coordination effectiveness vs. overhead
Week 3-8: Rebuilt Lightweight Coordination
├── Understand actual coordination problems through observation
├── Try multiple lightweight solutions simultaneously
├── Measure coordination satisfaction and effectiveness
└── Gradually formalize only the solutions that work
Month 3-6: Sustainable Structure Evolution
├── Create clear criteria for when structure is needed
├── Build structure that serves teams rather than controlling them
├── Establish regular structure health assessments
└── Create mechanisms for continuous structural adaptation
Recovery from Platform Bottlenecks
Immediate Relief (Week 1):
├── Create self-service alternatives for 50% of platform requests
├── Delegate platform extension authority to product teams
├── Establish SLA targets for platform team response times
└── Create alternative paths for urgent needs
Short-term Restructuring (Weeks 2-8):
├── Transform platform teams from gatekeepers to service providers
├── Build product team capability to extend and modify platforms
├── Create platform contribution processes for product teams
└── Implement platform governance through peer review rather than approval
Long-term Evolution (Months 3-12):
├── Evolve platforms based on product team usage patterns
├── Create platform marketplaces with multiple service providers
├── Build platform analytics to optimize service delivery
└── Establish platform success metrics based on customer satisfaction
Related Patterns
- Aligned Autonomy - Balances independence with organizational goals
- Right-Sized Stream-Aligned Teams - Defines optimal team structure
- Team API - Makes team boundaries and interfaces explicit
- Enabling and Platform Teams - Provides supporting infrastructure
Sources
- Research by Hoda et al. on self-organizing agile teams
- Christopher Alexander, “A Pattern Language” (Pattern 80)
- Studies on team autonomy barriers by Moe et al.
- Spotify engineering culture documentation and lessons learned