The organization of OpenCraft¶
Small companies can be very efficient, and allow for organization to be relatively informal. Because everyone knows each other well, it's easier than in larger structures to work together. A small company with self-driven contributors who care about producing quality results needs very little oversight. It's easy for the leadership to communicate what needs to be done, as well as how and why - it's a small group.
When small companies grow however, everyone knows each other less well, and the assumption that everyone can be on the same page breaks down. It's true of individual contributors, who know less about each other's work, get less chances to work with all their colleagues as closely, and are thus more likely to step on each other's toes - or at least be less able to help each other. It's also true for members of management, whose time gets divided between more reports and projects, and who are thus less knowledgeable about each decision they have to take, have more difficulty communicating goals to everyone, and are also less able to help each report individually.
Most companies solve this issue by adding middle managers, who each manage a subset of the company, a team, and in turn report to the top management. This approach preserves some of the advantages of small companies: members of a team can know each other better again, and the team's manager has more time for each member. It seems familiar, but it's actually really different, because the middle manager has less capacity to make decisions than the top management team, and yet it is still responsible for solving the same issues. For a lot of problems - often the most important ones - decisions will involve the top management. Effectively, the introduction of middle management exacerbates the distance between individual contributors and the decisions being made, adding extra layers of filters with each management layer.
On the other hand, when companies try to keep growing without middle managers, most have failed. The rare successes show that self-management can work, even at scale: Buurtzorg grew to 9,000 nurses, Applied Energy Services to 40,000 employees (see Reinventing Organizations, by Frederic Laloux). But the number of companies who have tried and failed or ended up preferring middle management is a word of caution: Google , Medium , Buffer , etc.
At OpenCraft, we take a hybrid approach: use self-management in a targeted way, for specific responsibilities, while preserving a minimal hierarchy to address critical situations and act as safeguard. The goal with this approach is to distribute enough decision-making throughout the company to avoid the need for middle managers, while still retaining the capability to take some decisions in a centralized way when it is useful. An important goal is to make sure the final decision-maker is directly involved, and not isolated in an ivory tower behind intermediaries.
So, while OpenCraft uses some aspects of self-management, we still retain some key aspects of hierarchical organizations, such as having a BDFL/CEO. The most important thing to keep in mind is that when self-management and traditional management conflict, the latter will take precedence. Another way to think about this is to see cells as a concept that allows us to replace middle managers: just like a middle manager, a cell still has to implement the priorities defined by the hierarchy. Similarly, a team's manager is often best positioned to order their team's backlog, and can also have their own pet projects -- but when in doubt, a manager (or in OpenCraft's case, a cell) would still be expected to prioritize goals set by the hierarchy.
A company as a living organism¶
Traditional companies are often perceived by their management as machines, where humans are "resources", whose main function is to follow instructions. The top managers pull the lever, the middle managers are the cogs that transmit the order, and the workers execute.
For the type of company we want to be, a different metaphor seems more useful: living organisms. If we take a human for example, it is constituted of many different parts: cells and organs, which collaborate with each other. Each functions independently, and on its own; the brain doesn't need to take every decision for what each individual cell or organ does throughout the day. When needed, it will take over and order a specific reaction, with electric impulses, hormones, etc. But it does so selectively, leaving most of the operations vastly distributed, based on the rules from the DNA code all cells share.
To remind ourselves of that approach, our teams are named after one of the building blocks of life: cells.
Each individual contributor belongs to one cell, and cells may vary in size depending on their type and purpose. The people belonging to a cell represent the group of co-workers that each member of that cell knows best, and works with the closest. A large part of the everyday decisions and responsibilities are delegated to cells and their individual members, to ensure that they can be taken with the full context of the task(s) to complete, and can go from idea to implementation as independently as possible. This isn't independence or anarchy though: cells are all bound by a core set of rules - instead of DNA, we have the current handbook. And management can still intervene and take different decisions than the cell would have on its own. But this is much more autonomy than a conventional team in a hierchical structure would have, because there is a shared incentive to decentralize the decisions, with all parties trying to reduce the need for management and hierarchy.
We also have an advantage compared to conventional cells: the ability to rewrite our DNA. You can at any time suggest changes to the set of rules common to all cells by submitting a PR to the handbook repository.
There are currently three types of cells: generalist cells, project cells, and support cells. Differences between the different types of cells are defined throughout the handbook, in the relevant sections. Unless a specific rule or process is defined as applying to a specific cell type, by default all cells behave exactly the same.
At any given time, a generalist cell's members may be working on multiple epics and client projects, affording the cell a lot of flexibility in the amount and kind of work it can handle. Because of this, members are expected to have a degree of knowledge on all work the cell is undertaking, and will thus be often required to not only hop between epics, but also deal with emergencies in any of them. (For more information on the allocation of specific responsibilities at the cell and company level, see Roles and Expectations.) Aside from feature development for different clients, generalist cells are responsible for deployment and maintenance of client instances that we host, as well as for upgrading them to new releases of the Open edX platform.
Generalist cells grow by handling new leads brought in by business development, figuring out which size they need to have to complete accepted work, reviewing candidate leads and mentoring the accepted ones. And like biological cells, generalist cells are responsible for the creation of new ones, using a process similar to the mitosis of biological cells: if one grows beyond 12-16 core team members, it splits into two cells. Each new cell can then grow again, building upon the experience of members from the parent cell.
A project cell is in most respects exactly like a generalist cell: it is independent and responsible for its own sustainability. It differs in that it's intended to insulate projects of a certain size and importance from the natural competition for priority that can occur in a generalist cell, at the same time relieving its members from some context-switching. Like biological cells that have specialized in a single function, project cells lose some flexibility and longevity in the process, but become a lot more efficient at their job.
From its inception, a project cell exists to tend to a single client. In practice, that means focusing on a set of related epics from that client. Cell members are encouraged to focus on this work, with some foreseen exceptions such as their committed core contributor hours. Note, though, that it is perfectly ok for project cell members to take on tasks that are not directly related to their titular project: at times, this may be, for whatever reason, the best course of action. (For instance, a project cell may decide to assist with the current Open edX stable release work so as to be able to upgrade its client instances faster.)
To be clear, client owners in project cells are not meant to handle all support and management roles, which would in effect make them managers. Following the principle of decentralization of responsibilities, cell management roles such as epic planning and sustainability management and sprint (planning) management should be distributed to the cell's members, or delegated to a cell supporter when necessary, just like in a generalist cell.
Support cells exist to do supporting work for the organization. This is work which isn't directly related to the primary task of software development. Examples of support work include, but are not limited to, business development, accounting, marketing, and UX design.
This does not mean that support cell members may not do software development -- some do, and joined originally as software developers. That said, this is not the primary focus of their role at OpenCraft. Incidental software development supporting the organization may be organized on their sprint board.
Cells naturally focus a lot of their efforts on their own members, projects and clients, but cells also exist to help each other, like members of a larger team. Limits on cell size are meant to keep complexity manageable and allow for trust and team work, rather than the maximization of each individual cell's interests. Just like biological cells which together form a larger organism, it's important to ensure that the actions of a cell benefit the larger team, as well as the projects and communities with which we interact.
While all the epics and tasks from a given client are done within a single cell, the one that the client owner belongs to, reviewers for individual tickets can generally be assigned across cells. This is useful when there is someone with better expertise or knowledge in a different cell. It is also encouraged to interact across cells, asking questions or offering advice on subjects of interest. Also, some internal projects, such as preparing for and attending relevant conferences, may be shared between multiple cells. This means that tickets belonging to these types of projects can be assigned to members of different cells, even though ownership of the projects themselves still lies with a single cell.
Cross-cell planning and time logging¶
In general, time spent on work that is related to a specific epic is logged on tickets from the cell owning that epic. (Epics shared by multiple cells are the only exception. As described above, these epics may include tasks from more than one cell.) To allow cells and epic owners to remain in control of their budgets, a contributor needs to get approval of (or a request from) a member of another cell before spending time on a task from that cell. This process doesn't need to be too formal - if a member of a cell asks a question or requests the help from someone from another cell, it is sufficient.
To allow proper planning and make it possible for team members to view all of their tasks on a single board during the sprint, tasks from cell A will show up on cell B's sprint board if at least one of their reviewers is from cell B. To allow team members to clearly distinguish between tasks from their own cell and tasks from other cells visually, tasks from other cells are shown in purple on cell-specific sprint boards, and a “Hide not in cell” filter is available for each board.
Note that since sprint planning is done per cell, cross-cell assignation of reviewers should be discussed and decided ahead of the beginning of the next sprint as much as possible.
The DevOps cell¶
To make sure that OpenCraft's internal infrastructure (including but not limited to Ocim, our hosting automation software) receives consistent maintenance and continues to improve over time, we introduced a small project cell whose purpose is to help establish long-term vision and take the lead on large-scale infrastructure changes (such as migrating to a new cloud provider), as well as to define best practices around DevOps for the rest of the team.
To limit the impact of internal infrastructure-related projects on OpenCraft's sustainability, the DevOps cell may not pass this type of work to other cells, neither in the form of dedicated epics for implementing specific sets of infrastructure-related improvements, nor in the form of firefighting tasks for addressing ad-hoc issues. (There are some exceptional circumstances that may require suspending this rule temporarily. See triage guidelines from our documentation about firefighting for details.)
Depending on how things develop, we may relax this rule in the future and switch to an approach where the DevOps cell would be allowed to delegate varying amounts of infrastructure-related work to generalist cells over time, based on how much work we would like to see happen in parallel.
OpenCraft has been fully remote since its inception in 2014. It has never had a central office, though we do have an address for legal purposes. Years later, especially since the Coronavirus pandemic of 2020, remote work has become very common. However, in becoming common, it's not always clear what a company means when they say they support 'remote work.'
For many companies, 'remote work' means that you get to work remotely some days but are expected to come into the office on other days. For other companies, it means that you are expected to keep specific hours or stay in a specific country, but you get to work remotely otherwise.
OpenCraft is truly remote. Aside a few off-hours meetings for timezone reasons, everyone is free to decide when to work, and from where. The important part is to be able to get the work done and communicate frequently -- which requires having a good Internet connection and enough hours.
OpenCraft endeavours to make as many of our processes as asynchronous as possible so that no one has to work outside their preferred hours. Our sprint planning process is asynchronous, and while you may occasionally need to meet with a teammate or client outside your preferred time window, it's not the norm.
One exception to our remote work policies is the Open edX conference. The conference happens each year, and if a talk you submit is selected, you'll be flown in to the conference to meet with the team and community members in person. Another exception is the occasional company retreat. However, you will never need to move in somewhere 'local.'
One request, should you find yourself taking advantage of this flexibility and traveling -- send pictures!
Next, we will describe how we assign the responsibilities within OpenCraft - using roles.