[jpk]

Isn't this precisely what leadership is for? If you've implemented an architecture that mirrors your org chart, then the interfaces aren't just in software, they exist between managers as well. System-level success depends on the managers and the directors above them to steer the boat in a way that places accountability on the teams and components of the architecture necessary to ship a feature, or whatever.

[onion2k]

Isn't this precisely what leadership is for?

If your devs are just implementing whatever system design is coming from your tech leads, and having no opportunity to have an input or their own, you'll find you have very unhappy devs who don't hang around very long. That churn will make it impossible to build a decent system.

[jpk]

If your devs are just implementing whatever they want, with no strong design from your tech leads, and leaving no room for input from other teams, you'll find you have very unhappy customers who don't hang around very long... etc.

It's a balance.

[kaashif]

> If you've implemented an architecture that mirrors your org chart

In my experience this is almost invariably what happens. I would replace the if with a when.

Wow, you're telling me our three teams want to write three separate services? No way.

And the teams in New York want to use one technology while the teams in San Francisco want to use something else? Say it ain't so!