I include myself amongst those who have longed for a way to better articulate how firms can enable more outcome-focused teams.
So it’s been rewarding to have Team Topologies help me order my thinking to enable organisations to better support customer-facing teams. Such thinking will help those teams better serve their customers and deliver their organisation’s mission.
What Team Topologies says
We need to design our organisation around team-first principles. Chiefly we should design around teams’ cognitive load. Cognitive load meaning the mental effort being used at any one time.
Invariably the products & services an organisation creates is determined by its structure and its internal communication lines. This follows Conway’s Law. In a consultative manner, we should work with the law by altering team dynamics, structure and communication lines to create the desired products and services.
We should work with Conway’s Law by altering team dynamics, structure and communication lines to create the desired products and services.
Team Topologies offers a sophisticated mechanism to examine, design and improve team and organisation design.
This is achieved through close attention to team topologies (i.e. types of team), team responsibilities and collaboration modes. Ultimately this is to orientate the organisation to support teams to deliver a continuous flow of value.
There are four team types. Two of which are stream-aligned teams (i.e customer-facing teams) and Platform teams whose raison d’être is to support stream-aligned teams with reusable services with minimal friction.
Counter-intuitively, where appropriate, we need to reduce collaboration. For example, a platform team needs to provide an easy-to-consume service for customer-facing teams; this shouldn’t necessitate in-depth collaboration. This will allow the customer-facing team to focus more on their customer mission.
To help organisations realise their mission, Team Topologies helps standardise the ingredients for team and organisation design. Metaphorically speaking, these ingredients are not for a standard meal plan, but more for a test kitchen. A test kitchen where organisations can continuously discover how customer-facing teams should be supported by other team types and the leadership team.
Metaphorically speaking, the ingredients described in Team Topologies are not for a standard meal plan, but more for a test kitchen. A test kitchen where organisations can continuously discover how to support customer-facing teams.
Team Topologies will help foster the right mindset and means to help organisations re-orientate to support customer-facing teams become more outcome-focused, better serve customers and deliver the organisation’s mission.
It’s given me the language, ingredients and confidence to better articulate my own experiences to help my clients achieve success.
Does your team tend to do the right thing, or do the thing right?
Doing the rightthing means that despite any mandated procedure, sanctioned tools or unhelpful external expectations, the team can choose their own approach to achieve its purpose.
Doing the thing right means that the team adheres to the mandated procedures, use the sanctioned tools and meet external expectations, even if it means it impedes them from fulfilling their purpose.
This article offers a technique that’ll enable teams to examine and potentially improve their balance of doing the right thing and doing the thing right. But first an example…
Suppose a team of housing officers aren’t obligated into following ill-fitting procedures, tools, and expectations, they’ll have the freedom to find the right approach to meet their purpose to support their tenants. They will be doing the right thing. They will be discovering and evolving the right procedures, tools, and expectations.
If they bound by, or hide behind the use of procedures, tools, and expectations, which aren’t fit for purpose, they will be hindered from fulfilling their purpose of supporting their tenants. They’ll be doing the thing right.
Impact of doing the thing right
Many teams feel forced to do the thing right at the cost of doing the right thing. Lack of freedom to safely challenge, and potentially disregard, mandated ways of working can result in many to suffer in silence. It often leads to poor morale, disillusionment, unmet team objectives, and delay.
At times the detrimental impact can lead to catastrophe, resulting in public outcry, scandal and suffering. One tragic example is the Liverpool Care Pathway scandal, where many patients in palliative care suffered as a result of a ‘tick box exercise’. Patients were being assessed as terminally ill, heavily sedated and denied water often resulting in their diagnosis becoming self-fulfilling.
A less harrowing, yet a universal occurrence in many organisations are mandated frameworks and procedures. Often these are deemed by outsiders as necessary. However, these mandates were never, or are no longer, fit-for-purpose. For example a heavyweight PMO process, or an inappropriate compliance regime mandated by distant policymakers, or an inflexible and protracted delivery lifecycle.
Overcoming doing the thing right
How can teams overcome the pressure to do the thing right so they can focus on fulfilling their purpose? How can they recognise and challenge ill-fitting procedures, tools, and expectations?
I have a technique that will help teams map and strategise their way towards doing more of the right thing. The technique works by incrementally expanding the boundary of existing local freedoms into the area of external expectations and mandated processes.
The technique recognises that mandates may have originated from a worthy – yet possibly misconceived – desire to manage for consistency, efficiency, and alignment across the organisation.
It also recognises that since organisations need to adapt to change and uncertainty, to be effective, teams need the flexibility to experiment with emergent and nonconformist ways of working, which still align with the wider organisational vision.
This facilitated technique involves the team identifying the interactions, processes and tools they are involved with.
Start with identifying between six and 12 items which are routine team practices. Here are some examples:
Influential Senior Manager from a different business unit
Regular customer visits
New governance process mandated by new parent company
Manual document control process with no centralisation or version control
Web-based collaborative documentation tools. Tool introduced by the new parent company
Implementing unquestioned requirements based on a untested solution
Approximately place each item onto a plot showing the value the item contributes to the team’s purpose versus the degree of control the team has to do the item.
The team could do this post-it notes so they can be easily discussed, changed and moved around.
Finally, referring to the illustration below, categorise and discuss the items as follows.
Low value & team’s choice
Discuss whether the item should be stopped. This item provides little value and the team has freedom to discontinue it.
High value & team’s choice
This item should be continued, monitored and refined.
High value & no team choice
Although the item is mandated, it still provides value to the team. It should be continued and potentially refined with those mandating the item.
Low value & no team choice
Since it’s mandated, the team will need to continue this item. However, where possible, they should discuss with those mandating the item that it provides little value to the team’s purpose. Both parties should explore how adjustments or alternatives could address their shared needs and concerns.
The team should recognise this is a dynamic landscape, over which they have some agency. Therefore this technique should be done periodically, and with discipline. It will help the team continuously expand and improve upon the procedures, tools and expectations needed to fulfil their purpose.
This technique should help the team gain a better awareness of the procedures, tools and expectations they have control over, and which they don’t. It will help move from frustration & dejection to engagement & continuous improvement.
Contact me (email@example.com) if you would like help introducing this technique within your organisation.
Here’s an approach I’ve found successful when helping teams ensure their backlog supports optionality, handles uncertainty and continuously adjusts so their goals and strategies are aligned to their vision.
A backlog should have these qualities
The backlog is made-up of backlog items. Each item represents a business goal, which when delivered by the team, will provide a beneficial outcome to the business and its customers/stakeholders.
Qualities of the backlog:
Easy to update by the product owner
Should be available to everyone in the business
Shows the backlog items for the next sprint
Conveys a vision of the future with a tangible path to the present
Reflects vagueness and options
If a distant backlog item is too vague to describe in words, consider drawing a picture, as shown in the photo below
Self-explanatory to anyone in the business
I often encourage teams to visualise the backlog in a cone-shape in this manner:
The neck of the cone shows the current sprint goals
The widest point of the cone shows the furthest goals which may be months or years from now.
The centre of the cone shows the goals for the intervening time periods. This area can be divided into sprints, months, quarters and half-year intervals.
Reason for the cone-shape
It reflects the cone of uncertainty, where the further out the team considers, the less certain they are of the future environment.
The narrow neck of the cone reflects the fact the team can only sustainably deliver a small number of goals. Invariably there is more demand than the team can supply, so the team should gradually constrain the number of goals as the time nears the current sprint.
The further into the future, the more the team can consider a wide number of options. This optionality allows the team to consider many possibilities and scenarios without having to commit earlier than necessary. However, as time draws nearer, and as the cone gets narrower, the team will need to reduce the number of options based on the insights they have gathered.
Additional information which supports the backlog
As shown in the photo above, to enable continuous alignment across the business, there is additional information I advise teams to use:
Vision Statement: This is a short easy-to-understand statement which describes what the team intends to achieve. It’s written by the team, with their sponsor and stakeholders. The vision statement ensures alignment for the team with those they serve and with those whom the team may rely upon.
Strategies: These are the current set of approaches the team have reasonable confidence in that, if delivered successfully, will help fulfil the vision statement.
KPIs: These Key Performance Indicators are a small selection of measures which indicate whether the team’s strategies and sprint goals are achieving the team’s vision.
Epics start and end dates:Epics are goals which span more than one sprint. On the backlog, the likely start time of an epic is positioned with a blue post-it note; the likely end time is positioned with a pink post-it note.
Business Agility is an enterprise-wide mechanism to rapidly sense, respond and deliver the right business initiatives that will benefit an organisation and its customers.
To increase business agility, an organisation needs to promote the qualities of collaboration, alignment and synchronisation amongst its teams and departments. This creates cohesion to the organisations strategic goals.
Governance processes should be built around these qualities since it affords individuals and teams a great degree of freedom to pursue the organisation’s goals and outcomes. It will also help close the gap between strategic direction and day-to-day team execution.
Consider scaling team frameworks such as Scrum to create ways of working that promote these qualities.
Regardless of background, seniority or specialism, teams and individuals from across the business should have the freedom to collaborate. Collaboration can extend beyond the business to include business partners and clients.
Managers should help the business to reorganise so that cross-functional teams of specialists, regardless of department, can work as single teams to rapidly experiment and deliver business outcomes.
Leaders should enthuse and align their colleagues; managers should create the environment and ways of working with their colleagues which reduces misalignment.
Creating cross-functional and co-locate delivery teams can greatly improve business agility. However, despite this, often a single team cannot deliver products and services on their own. Often many teams need to be involved, which necessitates the synchronisation of effort across many teams.
To illustrate this Klaus Leopold gives a useful analogy which I’ve expressed as the following:
A customer wanting to have a letter written, where each team works independently by controlling a row of keys on a keyboard. Typing the letter would be uncoordinated, slow and frustrating.
To improve time to market, it’s inevitable that teams need to interact. So, rather than teams independently hitting their keys at speed, it’s better if each team slows down, coordinate and collectively hit the keys at the right time and sequence.
For a team to effectively deliver valuable business outcomes, they should typically be set-up with the characteristics describe on this page. These characteristics will also help ensure the team is aligned to the organisation’s strategy and fulfil the needs of customers and clients
These characteristics are rules of thumb. Any compromises and trade-offs against these characteristics are likely to reduce team effectiveness and delay delivery. With continuous leadership guidance and coaching, the team should regularly review and make adjustments to find the sweet spot.
These characteristics can be viewed as enabling constraints, in that they are set of conditions which, although constraining, will enable the team’s alignment to business needs, handle uncertainty and deliver value effectively.
Each characteristic has an interactive slider. Use the slider to reveal the trade-offs and compromises for the characteristic.
Small team size over large team size
Small teams reduce the number of people who need to be kept up-to-date and therefore increases the team’s cohesion and nimbleness. Between five to nine people is the optimum.
Click on the circles to reveal the trade-offs
Co-located over distributed team
Teams who sit together are able to share, discover and deliver with the least barriers to communication. Empathy and effectiveness are maximised. When the team members are distributed, the benefits of non-verbal communication (e.g. body language) and emergent rituals are constrained.
The more the work is uncertain, complex and varied, the more the team should choose to co-locate. On the other hand, if the work is familiar, predictable and routine, then the team could be distributed.
Full-time over multiple endeavours
Teams who are full-time on a single project or initiative have the least amount of distraction. They don’t suffer the overhead of context-switching between different work.
Cross-disciplined over siloed specialisms
Teams are most effective when they have everyone they need to take a requirement through to delivery. They won’t be hampered by having to wait for, or gain sign-off from, external parties. Individuals should be T-shaped meaning they have the breadth of competencies and willingness to switch between a number of roles within the team.
Self-managing over external management
If the team has the clarity of their mission and have the competency to deliver the mission, they are best placed to discover how to manage themselves and decide how work should be delivered.
Emotional intelligence over a narrow worldview
The team should be made up of individuals who have the capability to recognise their own emotions and those of others. In a composed manner, they should use emotional information to guide thinking and behaviour, and professionally handle the inevitable trial and tribulations to achieve their team goals.
Long-lasting over short-term teams
It takes time for team members to understand each other’s preferences, nuances and specialists, and time for the team to form its culture and ways of working. Once the team has stabilised and is highly performant, be careful not to break-up the team without a compelling reason.
Leadership support over distant management
Attempting to deliver business value, particularly for new business initiatives, is inherently uncertain. Teams need support from leaders to ensure strategic alignment. Leaders should remove organisational impediments and negotiate with staunch traditionalists.
Close to customers over proxy interpretation
In order for the team to reduce the feedback cycle between learning and deliver, they must be closest in the organisation to the customers or clients. Any intermediaries will slow the feedback cycle, increase misinterpretation and reduce customer retention.
Strictly Necessary Cookies
Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.
If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.