18F/18f.gsa.gov

---
title: "The value of cross-functional teams"
date: 2019-06-18
authors:
- waldo-jaquith
tags:
- acquisition services
- agile
- best practices
excerpt: "A core concept of agile is that teams are cross-functional:
the team collectively possesses all of the skills necessary to get the
job done. We embrace that at 18F, and take it a little farther, and not
just on agile teams."
---

A core concept of agile is that teams are cross-functional: the team
collectively possesses all of the skills necessary to get the job done.
We embrace that at 18F, and take it a little farther, and not just on
agile teams. Our partner-facing teams will often meet with partners en
masse, even if the agenda is narrow enough that perhaps only one person
from 18F could join. While this might seem inefficient, we find that it
saves time and money.

## Eliminate redundancy and drive efficiency

After an external-facing meeting comes the post-meeting debrief: now
that one person has met with the partner, it’s time for an internal
meeting, to fill in everybody else on what transpired. This often
requires more collective time than the original meeting, in which case
it would have been more efficient to include everybody in the first
place.

Meetings often stray from their planned topics, especially when they’ve
been convened by empowered stakeholders. A meeting that was supposed to
be about user research might unexpectedly and necessarily pivot to being
about the technical plausibility of performing remote usability testing
or the limits of 18F’s contract with the partner. That meeting could be
concluded successfully if it included not just 18F’s UX lead, but also
the technical lead and the contracting lead.

Even meetings on ostensibly narrow topics can benefit from “unrelated”
expertise from other team members. Even if the meeting did stay within
its planned topic of user research, having the technical lead on the
call means that she can point out that the vendor doesn’t need to send a
UX researcher across the country for an on-site visit with the agency,
because the agency partner is equipped to participate in that process
remotely. Or the product lead could point out that the user research
that’s already been done has led to a significant backlog in interface
design needs, some of which are going to impact what would be tested
now, so maybe wait and test once that work has been acted on?

Having multiple expertises represented as a matter of course serves to
reduce wasted meeting time and helps everybody arrive at the correct
conclusion faster.

## Benefit from cross-functional humans

It’s our experience that the best cross-functional teams are comprised
of cross-functional humans, a.k.a. “[T-shaped people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-shaped_skills).” These are people who have deep knowledge in one area required by the project, while having a functioning level of knowledge in many of the other areas.

Our acquisition consulting work will include a procurement lead —
somebody who has worked as a contracting officer and casually cites the
[FAR](https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far). But it’s
important that everybody else on the team has working knowledge of
procurement regulations and practices, with the identified product owner
ideally certified as a Contracting Officer’s Representative. And it’s
important that somebody be the technical lead, but everybody else must
be comfortable talking about the merits of various cloud platforms, the
benefits of DevOps, and why unit tests are important. And so on.

Teams comprised of cross-functional humans are resilient and flexible.
If one person cannot attend a meeting, or is on vacation for a couple of
weeks, the remaining team is likely to be able to continue working
without interruption. This approach can free up the experts for the most
difficult work, so if, for example, the technical lead has extra time on
her hands, she can resolve a minor procurement question while the
procurement lead focuses on writing an RFP.

This natural knowledge-sharing approach keeps anybody from being a
personal knowledge silo, while allowing every member of the team to
constantly learn from their teammates.

## Better service through better meetings

The notion of having four or five people in a meeting that one person
could handle may seem unnecessarily complex. But by starting with the
assumption that meetings require the whole team, and only whittling that
list down when there’s good evidence that doing so won’t be problematic,
we’ve been able to save time, save money, and serve our partners
better.

If you’re interested in working with 18F, get in touch at
[inquiries18f@gsa.gov](mailto:inquiries18f@gsa.gov).