Skip to main content

Cross Functional Teams

Example of Small Cross Functional Teams - Jazz Bands
In the early days of a startup, everyone is on one team; they’re all part of the same tight-knit family.
Until the headcount reaches 15-25 – especially if they all share an office – it’s hard for any employees to be misaligned for too long.

Fast forward to when the organization grows to hundreds of people, or even thousands. Then the execs start making choices about how to organize; considerations like efficiency, career paths, dependencies all come into play.

To maintain agility in the company, it’s best to have everyone working together on the same team, reporting to the same manager who is responsible for delivering on the goals.

During my years of delivering software projects, I have noticed that the #1 issue plaguing product delivery is dependencies. When the Program Managers, Designers, Developers and Quality Assurance (QA) Engineers are all on a different team, it requires coordination, scheduling and other things that slow the progress down.

It’s impossible to avoid dependencies, but it’s always a good strategy to minimize them. 

Being physically located together is a big advantage as well. I have seen many instances in which a QA engineer finds a bug and the developer fixes it instantly. Stepping in to help someone out happens a lot more frequently when that someone is a real person; a real person who reports to the same manager and sometimes grabs lunch with you in the cafeteria. On my cross-functional teams, developers continuously help out QA with automation and testing.

The endless back and forth -- the triage and figuring out how to set up the repro environment -- goes away when you can take three steps to look at your neighbor’s screen.


The benefit of a big Developer team having sister QA and Program Management teams is that the company gains efficiencies from these disciplines being together. The Director of QA, for example, can establish the common tools and guidelines. For a company that’s in a more stable phase, that could be the right configuration. This organizational structure also helps employees who aim to move up the management ranks and need a career trajectory for graduating from individual contributor, to lead, to manager to director and so forth.

For most of my life, I’ve been focused on hyper-growth products that needed to move fast with as few dependencies as possible. As a result, I’m a big fan of the cross-functional team model.

-mb

PS: If you liked this post you might also like Three Pillars of Engineering Management and The biggest issue for software schedules.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team. I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me! SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts: Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams   and  Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!
Post a Comment
Read more

Code versus Configuration

At Ethos we are building a distributed mortgage origination system and in mortgage there is a lot of different user types with processes that vary depending on geography.  One of our ongoing discussions is about how much of the logic resides in code vs. being in a workflow system or configuration.  After researching this topic for a bit, I have arrived at a conclusion that the logic should live outside of code very infrequently, which might come as a surprise to a lot of enterprise software engineers. Costs of configuration files and workflow engines First thing that I assume is true is that having any logic outside of the code has costs associated with it.  Debugging highly configurable system involves not only getting the appropriate branch from source control, you also need to make sure that the right configuration values or the database.  In most cases this is harder for programmers to deal with.  In many FinTech companies where the production data is not made readily acce
Post a Comment
Read more

Intuitive Programming - Comments

Comments are a topic of vibrant discussion.  Ever since programmers could leave some text in the program that was ignored by the machine the debate started: “what’s a good comment, what’s a bad comment, why comment?” There are endless instructions to programmers that say many of the following things: 1) Describe your function! 2) Don’t write in the comment what you wrote in the code. 3) Tell people why you are doing what you are doing. What I think has been missing from this discourse is the audience for comments and through those audiences there is intent.  The code is being read, skimmed or analyzed by people and tools.  So what are the audiences and reading modes? 1) Maintaining and enhancing the code 2) Skimming through the entire module or file to figure out what the overall structure is 3) Reviewing the test files to check out the test coverage and edge cases 4) Seeing the docstrings of functions while being in a separate file altogether 5) Reviewi
Post a Comment
Read more