This puzzled me: "Projects need multi-team cooperation to succeed, so you have to do a lot of work up front to get everybody pulling together. But it makes proj

This puzzled me: "Projects need multi-team cooperation to succeed, so you have to do a lot of work up front to get everybody pulling together. But it makes projects fragile." The suggestion is that teams are atomic, that projects are scoped larger than what teams can do, and the bag-of-teams for a given project is volatile - because teams are seeking the highest reward projects. What's missing for me is an organizational cadence where projects pitch, teams shop, and then all commit for some period of time and then evaluate in phase. Maybe that approach is too static. It is interesting to think about teams independently managing their committments as bandit experiments inside the org.