stakeholders-org-design
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/stakeholders-org-designDesign org structures and map stakeholder influence networks.
- Maps stakeholders, defines team boundaries, and assesses maturity.
- Integrates Conway's Law, RACI, DORA, and CMMC frameworks.
- Decides recommendations by analyzing power-interest matrices.
- Delivers actionable checklists and transition governance plans.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/stakeholders-org-designView on GitHub ↗
--- name: stakeholders-org-design description: Provides frameworks for mapping stakeholder influence networks, designing team structures aligned with system architecture (Conway's Law), defining team interface contracts (APIs, SLAs, decision rights), and assessing capability maturity (DORA, CMMC, agile models). Use when designing org structure or team topologies, mapping stakeholders for change initiatives, defining team interfaces, assessing capability maturity, planning restructures, or when user mentions org design, team structure, stakeholder map, Conway's Law, or RACI. --- # Stakeholders & Organizational Design ## Table of Contents 1. [Workflow](#workflow) 2. [Stakeholder Mapping](#stakeholder-mapping) 3. [Team Interface Contracts](#team-interface-contracts) 4. [Capability Maturity](#capability-maturity) 5. [Common Patterns](#common-patterns) 6. [Guardrails](#guardrails) 7. [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) ## Workflow Copy this checklist and track your progress: ``` Org Design Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Map stakeholders and influence - [ ] Step 2: Define team structure and boundaries - [ ] Step 3: Specify team interfaces and contracts - [ ] Step 4: Assess capability maturity - [ ] Step 5: Create transition plan with governance ``` **Step 1: Map stakeholders and influence** Identify all stakeholders, categorize by power-interest, map influence networks. See [Stakeholder Mapping](#stakeholder-mapping) for power-interest matrix and RACI frameworks. **Step 2: Define team structure and boundaries** Design teams aligned with architecture and strategy. For straightforward restructuring → Use [resources/template.md](resources/template.md). For complex org design with Conway's Law → Study [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md). **Step 3: Specify team interfaces and contracts** Define APIs, SLAs, handoff protocols, decision rights between teams. See [Team Interface Contracts](#team-interface-contracts) for contract patterns. **Step 4: Assess capability maturity** Evaluate current state using maturity models (DORA, CMMC, custom). See [Capability Maturity](#capability-maturity) for assessment frameworks. **Step 5: Create transition plan with governance** Define migration path, decision rights, review cadence. Self-check using [resources/evaluators/rubric_stakeholders_org_design.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_stakeholders_org_design.json). Minimum standard: Average score ≥ 3.5. ## Stakeholder Mapping ### Power-Interest Matrix | Quadrant | Engagement | Example | |----------|------------|---------| | High Power, High Interest | Manage Closely (frequent communication) | Executive sponsor, product owner | | High Power, Low Interest | Keep Satisfied (status updates) | CFO for tech project, legal | | Low Power, High Interest | Keep Informed (engage for feedback) | Individual contributors, early adopters | | Low Power, Low Interest | Monitor (minimal engagement) | Peripheral teams | ### RACI Matrix - **R - Responsible**: Does the work (can be multiple) — Example: Engineering team builds feature - **A - Accountable**: Owns outcome (**exactly one** per decision) — Example: Product manager accountable for feature success - **C - Consulted**: Provides input before decision (two-way) — Example: Security team consulted on auth design - **I - Informed**: Notified after decision (one-way) — Example: Support team informed of launch ### Influence Network Mapping **Identify**: Champions (advocates), Blockers (resistors), Bridges (connectors), Gatekeepers (control access) **Map**: Who influences whom? Formal vs informal power, trust relationships, communication patterns ## Team Interface Contracts ### API Contracts **Specify**: Endpoints, data format/schemas, authentication, rate limits, versioning/backward compatibility **Example**: Service: User Auth API | Owner: Identity Team | Endpoints: /auth/login, /auth/token | SLA: 99.95% uptime, <100ms p95 ### SLA (Service Level Agreements) **Define**: Availability (99.9%, 99.99%), Performance (p50/p95/p99 latency), Support response times (critical: 1hr, high: 4hr, medium: 1 day), Capacity (requests/sec, storage) ### Handoff Protocols **Design → Engineering**: Specs, prototype, design review sign-off | **Engineering → QA**: Feature complete, test plan, staging | **Engineering → Support**: Docs, runbook, training | **Research → Product**: Findings, recommendations, prototypes ### Decision Rights (DACI) **D - Driver** (orchestrates), **A - Approver** (exactly one), **C - Contributors** (input), **I - Informed** (notified) **Examples**: Architectural (Tech Lead approves, Architects contribute) | Hiring (Hiring Manager approves, Interviewers contribute) | Roadmap (PM approves, Eng/Design/Sales contribute) ## Capability Maturity ### DORA Metrics (DevOps Maturity) | Metric | Elite | High | Medium | Low | |--------|-------|------|--------|-----| | Deployment Frequency | Multiple/day | Weekly-daily | Monthly-weekly | <Monthly | | Lead Time | <1 hour | <1 day | 1 week-1 month | >1 month | | MTTR | <1 hour | <1 day | 1 day-1 week | >1 week | | Change Failure Rate | 0-15% | 16-30% | 31-45% | >45% | ### Generic Maturity Levels (CMM) **Level 1 Initial**: Unpredictable, reactive | **Level 2 Repeatable**: Basic PM | **Level 3 Defined**: Documented, standardized | **Level 4 Measured**: Data-driven | **Level 5 Optimizing**: Continuous improvement ### Custom Capability Assessment **Template**: Capability Name | Current Level (1-5 with evidence) | Target Level | Gap | Action Items ## Common Patterns **Pattern 1: Functional → Product Teams (Spotify Model)** - **Before**: Frontend team, Backend team, QA team, DevOps team - **After**: Product Squad 1 (full-stack), Product Squad 2 (full-stack) - **Interfaces**: Squads own end-to-end features, shared platform team for infrastructure - **Benefit**: Faster delivery, reduced handoffs, clear ownership **Pattern 2: Platform Team Extraction** - **Trigger**: Multiple product teams duplicating infrastructure work - **Design**: Create platform team providing self-service tools - **Interface**: Platform team APIs + documentation, office hours, SLA - **Staffing**: 10-15% of engineering (1 platform engineer per 7-10 product engineers) **Pattern 3: Embedded vs Centralized Specialists** - **Embedded**: Security/QA/Data engineers within product teams (close collaboration) - **Centralized**: Specialists in separate team (consistency, expertise depth) - **Hybrid**: Center of Excellence (set standards) + Embedded (implementation) - **Choice Factors**: Team size, maturity, domain complexity **Pattern 4: Conway's Law Alignment** - **Principle**: System design mirrors communication structure - **Application**: Design teams to match desired architecture - **Example**: Microservices → Small autonomous teams per service - **Anti-pattern**: Monolithic team structure → Monolithic architecture persists **Pattern 5: Team Topologies (4 Fundamental Types)** - **Stream-Aligned**: Product teams, aligned with flow of change - **Platform**: Internal products enabling stream-aligned teams - **Enabling**: Build capability in stream-aligned teams (temporary) - **Complicated-Subsystem**: Specialists for complex areas (ML, security) ## Guardrails **Conway's Law is inevitable:** - Teams will produce systems mirroring their communication structure - Design teams intentionally for desired architecture - Reorganizing teams = reorganizing system boundaries **Team size limits:** - **2-pizza team**: 5-9 people (Amazon) - **Dunbar's number**: 5-15 close working relationships - Too small (<3): Fragile, lacks skills diversity - Too large (>12): Communication overhead, subgroups form **Cognitive load per team:** - Each team has limited capacity for domains/systems - **Simple**: 1 domain per team - **Complicated**: 2-3 related domains - **Complex**: Max 1 complex domain per team **Interface ownership clarity:** - Every interface needs one clear owner - Shared ownership = no ownership - Document: Owner, SLA, contact, escalation **Avoid matrix hell:** - Minimize dual reporting (confusing accountability) - If matrix needed: Clear primary vs secondary manager - Define decision rights explicitly (RACI/DACI) **Stakeholder fatigue:** - Don't manage all stakeholders equally - High power/interest = frequent engagement - Low power/interest = minimal updates - Adjust as power/interest shifts **Maturity assessment realism:** - Don't grade on aspirations - Evidence-based assessment (metrics, artifacts, observation) - Common pitfall: Over-rating current state - Use external benchmarks when available ## Quick Reference **Resources:** - **Quick org design**: [resources/template.md](resources/template.md) - **Conway's Law & Team Topologies**: [resources/methodology.md](resources/methodology.md) - **Quality rubric**: [resources/evaluators/rubric_stakeholders_org_design.json](resources/evaluators/rubric_stakeholders_org_design.json) **5-Step Process**: Map Stakeholders → Define Teams → Specify Interfaces → Assess Maturity → Transition Plan **Stakeholder Mapping**: Power-Interest Matrix (High/Low × High/Low), RACI (Responsible/Accountable/Consulted/Informed), Influence Networks **Team Interfaces**: API contracts, SLAs (availability/performance/support), handoff protocols, decision rights (DACI/RAPID) **Maturity Models**: DORA (deployment frequency, lead time, MTTR, change failure rate), Generic CMM (5 levels), Custom assessments **Team Types**: Stream-Aligned (product), Platform (internal products), Enabling (capability building), Complicated-Subsystem (specialists) **Guardrails**: Conway's Law, team size (2-pizza, Dunbar), cognitive load limits, interface ownership clarity, avoid matrix hell
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".