As software architects, we tend to focus heavily on the design of the systems we build—how the various components interact, the data flow, and the technology choices. But architecture doesn’t exist in a vacuum. One often overlooked element is how the structure of our teams can (and should) align with the architecture itself. The relationship between team setup and software design is symbiotic: your team’s structure influences the system’s architecture, and the architecture shapes how teams need to work together. Getting this alignment right can be the key to efficiency, scalability, and long-term success.
Why Team Setup Matters in Software Architecture
There’s an adage known as Conway’s Law, which states:
Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure.
In simple terms, the way your teams are structured will be reflected in your system’s architecture. If your teams don’t communicate effectively or aren’t organized with the system’s architecture in mind, the software will likely suffer from inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and inconsistencies.
When you misalign teams with the architecture, problems compound. For example, a team responsible for multiple disparate parts of the system may struggle with divided focus, whereas two teams working on tightly coupled services could find themselves in constant conflict over design decisions and timelines. Proper alignment ensures smoother workflows and better outcomes.
This is also emphasized in the Practical Architecture presentation by Stefan Tillkov:
Key Considerations for Aligning Teams with Software Design
To create the right balance between team structure and software architecture, you need to be intentional about both. Here are a few principles that can guide you:
1. Modularity
Modular design allows you to break your system into smaller, loosely coupled components that can be built and maintained independently. In this setup, you can align teams around those modules. Each team becomes responsible for a specific module or service, granting them ownership over that part of the system and minimizing interdependencies.
For example, in a microservices architecture, it makes sense to assign a team to own the entire lifecycle of a service—everything from design to deployment. This encourages autonomy and allows teams to iterate and deploy changes independently without creating friction with other teams.
2. Cross-functional Teams
It’s not enough to assign a team to a module; you need to ensure that each team has all the necessary skills to deliver on their responsibilities end-to-end. This is where cross-functional teams come in. A team should ideally have the right mix of skills—frontend, backend, testing, operations, etc.—to deliver features without relying too much on external teams.
This reduces bottlenecks caused by external dependencies and allows teams to work faster and more efficiently. In fact, this approach mirrors the rise of DevOps, where development and operations are integrated within teams to streamline the delivery process.
3. Communication Channels
When designing both teams and architecture, it’s essential to consider natural communication paths. If your architecture requires constant communication between two services, it might make sense for the same team to own both. Alternatively, if the services need to remain separate, you should establish clear interfaces and boundaries, reducing the need for constant back-and-forth between teams.
Mapping the architecture to communication patterns avoids unnecessary friction and promotes smoother collaboration between teams.
Designing for Collaboration and Ownership
A well-aligned team structure doesn’t just improve efficiency; it also fosters ownership. When teams own specific components, they become experts in that area, taking pride in the quality and stability of their service. Ownership encourages better decision-making because teams understand the full impact of their choices.
However, while ownership is crucial, collaboration between teams is equally important. It’s essential to foster cross-team collaboration models as described in Team Topologies.
These structures provide a framework for teams to collaborate without creating too many dependencies that slow down individual progress.
Feedback Loops Between Architecture and Teams
One key point to remember is that both team structures and software architectures are not static—they evolve. As teams grow and responsibilities shift, the architecture may need to adapt, and vice versa. It’s important to maintain a feedback loop between these two elements.
For example, as a system grows, some components may become more critical and require dedicated teams, or new communication pathways may emerge that necessitate changes to how teams are organized.
Regularly revisiting your architecture and team structure through retrospectives or reviews ensures that both continue to align over time.
Conclusion
Architecting team setups is just as important as designing the software architecture itself. By aligning teams with the system's design, you create a structure that enhances collaboration, ownership, and efficiency. As both your architecture and teams evolve, maintaining this alignment will help you scale smoothly and avoid many common pitfalls.
In the end, successful software systems don’t just reflect great technical design—they reflect the people who built them and how they work together.
More information
Conway’s Law–The original paper (bartwullems.blogspot.com)
Building platforms–Strike the right balance (bartwullems.blogspot.com)
You don’t have a platform if it doesn’t have self service (bartwullems.blogspot.com)