| name | stakeholders-org-design |
| description | Provides frameworks for mapping stakeholder influence networks, designing team structures aligned with system architecture (Conway's Law), defining team interface contracts (APIs, SLAs, decision rights), and assessing capability maturity (DORA, CMMC, agile models). Use when designing org structure or team topologies, mapping stakeholders for change initiatives, defining team interfaces, assessing capability maturity, planning restructures, or when user mentions org design, team structure, stakeholder map, Conway's Law, or RACI. |
Stakeholders & Organizational Design
Table of Contents
- Workflow
- Stakeholder Mapping
- Team Interface Contracts
- Capability Maturity
- Common Patterns
- Guardrails
- Quick Reference
Workflow
Copy this checklist and track your progress:
Org Design Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and influence
- [ ] Step 2: Define team structure and boundaries
- [ ] Step 3: Specify team interfaces and contracts
- [ ] Step 4: Assess capability maturity
- [ ] Step 5: Create transition plan with governance
Step 1: Map stakeholders and influence
Identify all stakeholders, categorize by power-interest, map influence networks. See Stakeholder Mapping for power-interest matrix and RACI frameworks.
Step 2: Define team structure and boundaries
Design teams aligned with architecture and strategy. For straightforward restructuring → Use resources/template.md. For complex org design with Conway's Law → Study resources/methodology.md.
Step 3: Specify team interfaces and contracts
Define APIs, SLAs, handoff protocols, decision rights between teams. See Team Interface Contracts for contract patterns.
Step 4: Assess capability maturity
Evaluate current state using maturity models (DORA, CMMC, custom). See Capability Maturity for assessment frameworks.
Step 5: Create transition plan with governance
Define migration path, decision rights, review cadence. Self-check using resources/evaluators/rubric_stakeholders_org_design.json. Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5.
Stakeholder Mapping
Power-Interest Matrix
| Quadrant | Engagement | Example |
|---|
| High Power, High Interest | Manage Closely (frequent communication) | Executive sponsor, product owner |
| High Power, Low Interest | Keep Satisfied (status updates) | CFO for tech project, legal |
| Low Power, High Interest | Keep Informed (engage for feedback) | Individual contributors, early adopters |
| Low Power, Low Interest | Monitor (minimal engagement) | Peripheral teams |
RACI Matrix
- R - Responsible: Does the work (can be multiple) — Example: Engineering team builds feature
- A - Accountable: Owns outcome (exactly one per decision) — Example: Product manager accountable for feature success
- C - Consulted: Provides input before decision (two-way) — Example: Security team consulted on auth design
- I - Informed: Notified after decision (one-way) — Example: Support team informed of launch
Influence Network Mapping
Identify: Champions (advocates), Blockers (resistors), Bridges (connectors), Gatekeepers (control access)
Map: Who influences whom? Formal vs informal power, trust relationships, communication patterns
Team Interface Contracts
API Contracts
Specify: Endpoints, data format/schemas, authentication, rate limits, versioning/backward compatibility
Example: Service: User Auth API | Owner: Identity Team | Endpoints: /auth/login, /auth/token | SLA: 99.95% uptime, <100ms p95
SLA (Service Level Agreements)
Define: Availability (99.9%, 99.99%), Performance (p50/p95/p99 latency), Support response times (critical: 1hr, high: 4hr, medium: 1 day), Capacity (requests/sec, storage)
Handoff Protocols
Design → Engineering: Specs, prototype, design review sign-off | Engineering → QA: Feature complete, test plan, staging | Engineering → Support: Docs, runbook, training | Research → Product: Findings, recommendations, prototypes
Decision Rights (DACI)
D - Driver (orchestrates), A - Approver (exactly one), C - Contributors (input), I - Informed (notified)
Examples: Architectural (Tech Lead approves, Architects contribute) | Hiring (Hiring Manager approves, Interviewers contribute) | Roadmap (PM approves, Eng/Design/Sales contribute)
Capability Maturity
DORA Metrics (DevOps Maturity)
| Metric | Elite | High | Medium | Low |
|---|
| Deployment Frequency | Multiple/day | Weekly-daily | Monthly-weekly | <Monthly |
| Lead Time | <1 hour | <1 day | 1 week-1 month | >1 month |
| MTTR | <1 hour | <1 day | 1 day-1 week | >1 week |
| Change Failure Rate | 0-15% | 16-30% | 31-45% | >45% |
Generic Maturity Levels (CMM)
Level 1 Initial: Unpredictable, reactive | Level 2 Repeatable: Basic PM | Level 3 Defined: Documented, standardized | Level 4 Measured: Data-driven | Level 5 Optimizing: Continuous improvement
Custom Capability Assessment
Template: Capability Name | Current Level (1-5 with evidence) | Target Level | Gap | Action Items
Common Patterns
Pattern 1: Functional → Product Teams (Spotify Model)
- Before: Frontend team, Backend team, QA team, DevOps team
- After: Product Squad 1 (full-stack), Product Squad 2 (full-stack)
- Interfaces: Squads own end-to-end features, shared platform team for infrastructure
- Benefit: Faster delivery, reduced handoffs, clear ownership
Pattern 2: Platform Team Extraction
- Trigger: Multiple product teams duplicating infrastructure work
- Design: Create platform team providing self-service tools
- Interface: Platform team APIs + documentation, office hours, SLA
- Staffing: 10-15% of engineering (1 platform engineer per 7-10 product engineers)
Pattern 3: Embedded vs Centralized Specialists
- Embedded: Security/QA/Data engineers within product teams (close collaboration)
- Centralized: Specialists in separate team (consistency, expertise depth)
- Hybrid: Center of Excellence (set standards) + Embedded (implementation)
- Choice Factors: Team size, maturity, domain complexity
Pattern 4: Conway's Law Alignment
- Principle: System design mirrors communication structure
- Application: Design teams to match desired architecture
- Example: Microservices → Small autonomous teams per service
- Anti-pattern: Monolithic team structure → Monolithic architecture persists
Pattern 5: Team Topologies (4 Fundamental Types)
- Stream-Aligned: Product teams, aligned with flow of change
- Platform: Internal products enabling stream-aligned teams
- Enabling: Build capability in stream-aligned teams (temporary)
- Complicated-Subsystem: Specialists for complex areas (ML, security)
Guardrails
Conway's Law is inevitable:
- Teams will produce systems mirroring their communication structure
- Design teams intentionally for desired architecture
- Reorganizing teams = reorganizing system boundaries
Team size limits:
- 2-pizza team: 5-9 people (Amazon)
- Dunbar's number: 5-15 close working relationships
- Too small (<3): Fragile, lacks skills diversity
- Too large (>12): Communication overhead, subgroups form
Cognitive load per team:
- Each team has limited capacity for domains/systems
- Simple: 1 domain per team
- Complicated: 2-3 related domains
- Complex: Max 1 complex domain per team
Interface ownership clarity:
- Every interface needs one clear owner
- Shared ownership = no ownership
- Document: Owner, SLA, contact, escalation
Avoid matrix hell:
- Minimize dual reporting (confusing accountability)
- If matrix needed: Clear primary vs secondary manager
- Define decision rights explicitly (RACI/DACI)
Stakeholder fatigue:
- Don't manage all stakeholders equally
- High power/interest = frequent engagement
- Low power/interest = minimal updates
- Adjust as power/interest shifts
Maturity assessment realism:
- Don't grade on aspirations
- Evidence-based assessment (metrics, artifacts, observation)
- Common pitfall: Over-rating current state
- Use external benchmarks when available
Quick Reference
Resources:
5-Step Process: Map Stakeholders → Define Teams → Specify Interfaces → Assess Maturity → Transition Plan
Stakeholder Mapping: Power-Interest Matrix (High/Low × High/Low), RACI (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed), Influence Networks
Team Interfaces: API contracts, SLAs (availability/performance/support), handoff protocols, decision rights (DACI/RAPID)
Maturity Models: DORA (deployment frequency, lead time, MTTR, change failure rate), Generic CMM (5 levels), Custom assessments
Team Types: Stream-Aligned (product), Platform (internal products), Enabling (capability building), Complicated-Subsystem (specialists)
Guardrails: Conway's Law, team size (2-pizza, Dunbar), cognitive load limits, interface ownership clarity, avoid matrix hell
