<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Org-Design on F. Latini - IT Engineer</title><link>https://latini.dev/tags/org-design/</link><description>Recent content in Org-Design on F. Latini - IT Engineer</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://latini.dev/tags/org-design/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Team Topologies in Practice</title><link>https://latini.dev/posts/team-topologies-in-practice/</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://latini.dev/posts/team-topologies-in-practice/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;TL;DR&lt;/strong&gt; - &lt;a href="https://teamtopologies.com/"&gt;Team Topologies&lt;/a&gt; gives you four team types and three interaction modes. Almost everyone adopts the four boxes - rename the ops team &amp;ldquo;platform team&amp;rdquo;, call the senior engineers an &amp;ldquo;enabling team&amp;rdquo; - and quietly ignores the three interaction modes, which is where the entire value lives. The book&amp;rsquo;s real payload is a single idea: organise teams to minimise cognitive load, and make the way teams interact both explicit and temporary by design. Here is how that plays out for a real platform group, and the failure modes I see most.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>