1. 15
  1.  

  2. 13

    I’m working in an org that uses a variant of this.

    Problems I’ve observed:

    • It is very hard to find the person ultimately responsible for shipping a product.
    • The people that look responsible for a product are also not the managers for the careers of people making the product. In theory, this gives a longer-term view on the career of the managed…in practice it results in a lot of “you’re not my real dad”.
    • Squads are encouraged to innovate on their own way of doing things (project management, tooling, etc.) and without a strong push for standardization across the org this results in an archipelago of islands of misfit toys. This makes staffing changes to support product pivots even more painful.
    • From the engineering side, this further encourages and frankly mandates/requires the use of techniques like microservices with all that that entails…except again, due to the Galapagos syndrome this encourages, the org doesn’t even benefit from the good parts of microservices since standards and whatnot can’t just be put in by fiat.

    It looks pretty on an orgchart, but it doesn’t seem to solve any of the problems we actually have. If you are in an org that is built this way, I am very, very sorry.