4 ms·
IMO, you need multiple models. The product model (or the "this team owns X" model) force a commitment to an area of work that doesn't always align with business
by jbmsf 4y ago
IMO, you need multiple models. The product model (or the "this team owns X" model) force a commitment to an area of work that doesn't always align with business needs. The project model is terrific for aligning people across skill sets, but doesn't do as well for ongoing work and tends to push staff from project to project (vs building deep experience), which can work well for generalists but not for everyone.
I see the actual problem being that management is rarely simultaneously deep enough and strong enough to make the right choices around work organization so everything just defaults into hierarchies.
- makeitdouble 4y agoTo note, "this team owns X" still has the team justify a budget or even its existence when push comes to shove. For instance if there was a “blue check” team of 3 people at Twitter, they’d have a hard time justify keeping the team 100% committed to it for years after the feature is released even if there is some small amount of ongoing work needed. Looking at estimated output vs the costs, they’d probably hibernate the team most of the time, as you do with projects basically.