Take a look at the infographics at https://teamtopologies.com/infographics - and talk to organisations like Conflux and Armakuni :)

Aim to get a shared understanding, between leaders and change agents, of all the themes discussed in the book. This can take time, however there is real value in a shared terminology and vision for the future. Running book clubs is an interesting way of doing this and there are open source templates for doing this.

We often see organisations focus on only one of the themes and, for example, mistake TT for a point-in-time org chart tool, before starting to work as individuals to embark on a programme of change

We often see organisations mistake TT as a “big bang” approach, requiring a single point-in-time implementation. TT has iteration at its core and it’s valuable to start with a smaller number of candidate teams.

Have a look at the materials on https://teamtopologies.com/ - Also see the upcoming conference Fast Flow Conference https://www.fastflowconf.com

There are a number of approaches to building the vision and direction of a stream aligned team.

The first question would be “Who is the customer or recipient of the value we’re creating?” and “Can we talk to them?”. The answers to these questions will be different depending on the context, but the fundamentals of a customer-centric mindset should be at the core of what and how the team will deliver that value.

Armakuni always runs a pre-inception discovery and inception workshop when a team is forming and repeatedly on a roughly quarterly basis. There are several components in this process that focus on who the customers are, who are the stakeholders, how to get laser clarity on the “What, when and why?” and how we’ll get feedback on the progress and value the team is delivering.

Approaches, such as the Team API, also enable others to “pull” the vision and purpose from the team and better enable discussions around leadership and where to focus next https://github.com/TeamTopologies/Team-API-template

First, the focus of a Complicated Subsystem Team is “complicated “ work in the Cynefin sense: needing expertise but still mechanistic, not emergent (hence “Complicated subsystem”, not “Complex subsystem”). The purpose of a CA team is very similar to the purpose of a platform: to improve flow in Stream-aligned teams by reducing team cognitive load.

So as we mention in pp.91-92 of the TT book, you should introduce a Complicated Subsystem Team ONLY when there is a need to improve flow and reduce cognitive load.

Say that your organisation needs (really needs) to build a video processing algorithm. Can that work be handled effectively by a Steam-aligned team, at least to begin with? If so, great - let those maths wizards deal with all the matrix maths and calculations for as long as it does not distract them from their core mission.

But as soon as the cognitive load of dealing with video processing details starts to reduce their flow and domain focus, think about spitting off that video aspect to a Complicated Subsystem team.

This is a good question but it’s sort of the wrong question :) The thing that determines a need for a platform is not the number of people in the department but the team cognitive load present due to the processes, tools, technologies, business domain, etc.

You could get value from using TT platform thinking at an organisation size of 6 people or 50 people depending on the cognitive load factors.

But for any organisation larger than about 15-20 people, you are almost certainly going to get some value from considering how to address team cognitive load.

Ask “what would it take to turn this into a non-blocking check via a platform?”

Often, this surfaces misunderstandings (or politics) around a topic and helps to move the discussion forward.

Look for new and emerging technologies (especially cloud services) that help with niche compliance or other testing as a service.

At Conflux, we work with Exec/C-level teams over 2-3 years to help shape their thinking and confidence with fast flow approaches. These group learning sessions are particularly effective at shifting perspectives and catalysing change.

We often find that there are many initiatives that can be paused or stopped to help make space for more effective ways of working.

Good question. Take a look at https://github.com/TeamTopologies/Team-Cognitive-Load-Assessment as a suggestion for a starting point.

We're also working on a formal Team Cognitive Load Assessment

Take a look at the examples at https://teamtopologies.com/examples - the organisations here use TT to continuously adapt and evolve their organisations and capabilities, not to create a static/fixed organisation.

Also see the upcoming conference Fast Flow Conference which is practitioner focused and has experience reports and insights from the leading implementers of TT https://www.fastflowconf.com