📎 Webclip
Budding vs. splitting: A better model for growing an engineering org
The post argues that once an engineering team grows beyond a two-pizza size, planning gets harder, ownership starts to form, and the temptation is to split into equal teams. For most startups, that cell-division model is the wrong one because the work is still changing.
A better model is budding. A small team forms around a workstream only after it has a stable, ongoing obligation, while the core team keeps handling short-lived and shifting work. That preserves flexibility, avoids premature boundaries, and lets the org change shape as the work stabilizes.
Reading notes#
- Team splits often happen when planning becomes painful and ownership is already emerging informally.
- Equal splits create permanent boundaries too early, before the product shape is clear.
- Budding means a small team grows around a stable workstream and then pinches off while the parent team continues.
- Conway’s law makes org boundaries show up in architecture, so early splits are hard to undo.
- The core team is meant to handle flexible, short-lived initiatives until the work stops changing.
- Stable, boring areas like billing, integrations, data pipelines, and enterprise features often stabilize first.
- A budded team can stay small; it does not need to grow into a large team.
- Too much budding can turn into slow-motion cell division and empty out the core team.
- The process should end when the work’s shape is known, usually around PMF, and the core team is no longer needed.