## Origins ![[Putt's Law#^definition|Putt's law]] The story begins with a product company that, to put it simply, lost control. They struggled to deliver effectively, and people were far from happy. Worse still, no one knew how to fix the situation: ![[Project X#^lost-control]] Fortunately, an opportunity arose to conduct a [[PMaaS]] audit for them. [[Martyna Gola]] was responsible not only for carrying it out but also for recommending improvements—both in project management and at the technical team level. ^pmaas-intro ![[PMaaS#^advantages]] As a [[Project manager]], she had a broad understanding of [[Product management]], project delivery, and people [[Leadership]], particularly in technical teams. However, like most PMs, she couldn't identify issues stemming from technical decisions due to a lack of expertise in that area: [[T-POP]] - [[Project manager]] perspective > - [[T-POP#Product|Product]] > - [[T-POP#Operation|Operation]] > - [[T-POP#People|People]] > - ~~*[[T-POP#Tech|Tech]] [decisions]*~~ ^pm-coverage Since a PM doesn't have full visibility into the technical side—why certain things are done the way they are—Martyna reached out to me for a consultation on the technical team’s setup. ^tech-intro And so, our story began with: > Hey, would you have 15 minutes to share some insights with me on the topic of **separating frontend and backend team work**? > [...] I’d like to make sure if there are cases **where this makes perfect sense** and how to identify them ^fe-vs-be And you can just imagine how I looked at that moment  ^fun ### A Tragedy in Five Acts I had a strong feeling that this project would reveal numerous underlying issues—organizational, technical, and competency-related. However, what intrigued me the most was identifying the original, fundamental cause that had led the project into its current state. > What was the **primary failure** in this project? ^the-very-question In the following sections, I’ll describe various aspects of the team's dysfunctions—framing them as a **tragedy in five acts**. This structure not only reflects the chronology of how these issues unfolded but also mirrors the way I analyzed the project alongside [[Martyna Gola]]. 1. [[How to decompose organisation structure]] 2. [[How to decompose organisation communication]] 3. [[Do people in organisation have impact]] 4. [[Do people in organisation have ownership]] 5. [[Is in orgnisation leadership]] ^agenda As always, let me emphasize—there is **no universal method** for diagnosing or fixing project issues. The aspects I discuss here represent **my approach** to uncovering the root cause in this particular case. However, in a different project, under different circumstances, I might take an entirely different path. ![[There is no universal method#^disclaimer]] What I expect from the reader is not to blindly follow my steps, but to understand the reasoning behind my choices—so they can apply the right methods in their own context when the situation demands it. ## There and Back Again In this article, I walked through a journey across several key elements, to understand **where the problems in the product team came from** - a team that originally looked like th ![[Team scalability.png]] We focused on the following areas: - We started with **structure**, which immediately revealed likely communication issues. - Then we dove deeper into **communication itself**, especially looking at whether their standards acted as a communication layer. - That led us to assess their **impact—or rather, the lack of it—on the project**. - Which ultimately revealed the **core issue**: → **A lack of responsibility for delivery** and a missing sense of **ownership**. - Ownership, when activated, would have allowed **true leaders to emerge**—on both the project and technical sides. - And with real leadership in place, the full **T-POP** spectrum would be covered, enabling the team to deliver and to regain **satisfaction in their work**. ### [[Conway's Law]] one more time Let’s now consider—just for the sake of reflection—what would happen if we followed **Conway’s Law** in reverse: ![[Conway's Law#^definition]] ![[#^agenda]] What if we flipped the process? - What if the **right leaders were already there**? - What if they not only had **ownership**, but actively **cultivated a culture of ownership** within the team? - What if **everyone contributed with real impact**? - What if that naturally enforced **strong collaboration and communication**? ^reverse-order ### The potato team Then the structure that would emerge wouldn’t be siloed or fragmented. It would likely be what I call a **“potato team”** - a team that works together, collaborates, takes ownership, delivers real value, and most importantly—**feels satisfaction in doing it**. ![[One team.png]]