3. Examples of Team Topologies

Examples of Team Topologies: How Team Structures Reflect Product Strategies

In this section, we’ll explore real examples of team topologies and how they evolved over time to meet product goals and reflect strategic changes. These are simplified versions of actual team structures, designed to highlight key principles that can help you create effective teams in your organization.

Example 1: RD Station (2016-2018)

In 2016, RD Station had six product teams, each responsible for a different part of the product. There were teams focused on:

  1. Traffic and Social Media
  2. Landing Pages
  3. Email Sending
  4. Deliverability (ensuring high open rates and avoiding spam filters)
  5. Lead Database
  6. Marketing and BI Dashboard

These teams were organized to work on specific features that aligned with the company’s value propositions. Each team had a clear mission, which allowed them to work on delivering value in a focused way.

In 2017, the structure evolved into a tribe system, where teams were grouped into larger units:

This structure allowed for specialization within tribes and more focused alignment with user needs throughout their journey. By late 2017, new squads and tribes were created, and some existing squads were merged or repurposed to reflect changing product strategies and priorities.

By 2018, RD Station’s team structure continued to evolve, with the introduction of new squads for initiatives like Product-Led Growth (PLG) and Partner Programs. These teams existed outside of tribes to allow greater independence and speed in experimentation without being slowed down by the larger organizational processes.

The majority of teams at RD Station were Stream-Aligned Teams—focusing on user-facing features and stages of the customer journey. There were also Platform Teams for elements like the lead database, which was used by other teams. Teams dedicated to complicated subsystems, such as reliability and scalability (e.g., Elasticsearch), were also introduced to ensure the system's robustness.

Example 2: Involves (2019)

In 2019, Involves had a different team topology, with four main groups:

  1. Industry-Focused Tribe: Responsible for the company’s main product, aimed at industry clients. This tribe had seven squads:

    • Setup and Onboarding
    • Routes
    • Product Mix
    • Execution
    • Management
    • Analytics
    • Administration

  2. Platform Tribe: Included squads for Core iOS, Core Android, Core Web, and Design System. These teams provided foundational elements used by other squads.

  3. Retail Product Squad: A separate group dedicated to a new product for retail clients.

  4. Research Area: Managed complex subsystems, including a Computer Vision Team responsible for image recognition (used to identify products on shelves) and a Data Products Team, initially focused on developing MVPs and providing insights to the main product.

The complex subsystem teams were distinct because of the specialized skills required for tasks like machine learning and data science. This separation allowed these teams to innovate faster without the constraints of the larger industry-focused tribe.

However, separating research teams did introduce challenges in communication and alignment. Heads of different areas had to work closely to ensure consistency in the overall product vision.

Example 3: Xerpay (2021)

In 2021, Xerpay's team structure consisted of seven squads organized into three main groups:

  1. Companies Tribe: Focused on employer-facing features, with two squads:

    • Onboarding: Managing the initial setup of companies.
    • Ongoing Support: Handling post-launch support and improvements.

  2. Employees Tribe: Focused on features for individual users, with three squads:

    • Activation: Responsible for onboarding individuals to the platform.
    • Cash In: Managed features related to salary advances and financial services.
    • Cash Out: Handled all types of payments.

  3. Platform Tribe: Included squads for SRE (Site Reliability Engineering) and Data. The Data squad focused on research and provided analytical support to other squads, making it an Enabling Team rather than a product team delivering directly to users.

In Xerpay, some overlap between squads (e.g., between Activation and Cash In/Cash Out) required careful leadership to manage and ensure alignment. However, maintaining these teams allowed them to focus deeply on specific aspects of the user journey.

Key Takeaways

These examples illustrate several key principles of team topology:

  1. Stream-Aligned Teams are the backbone of most product organizations, focusing on delivering value directly to users.
  2. Platform Teams provide shared capabilities that support multiple user-facing teams, ensuring consistency and reducing duplication.
  3. Complicated Subsystem Teams focus on technically challenging areas that require specialized expertise.
  4. Teams should be organized in ways that support communication flows that match the desired product outcome (as per Conway’s Law). For instance, separating squads for Product-Led Growth allowed faster innovation without unnecessary bureaucracy.
  5. There is no single "correct" team topology. The best structure depends on the specific needs of the product, the stage of growth, and the strategic priorities. The key is to make conscious decisions about team organization and adapt as needed.

When designing team topology, it’s important to remember that communication structures shape product outcomes. Whether you choose to integrate roles within squads or keep them separate, these choices will impact your product's design and the experience it delivers to users.

The next part of our discussion will focus on allocating team members effectively within these structures and ensuring that each team is set up for success.