Team Topology Assessor
Get started by loading sample data or adding your own teams.
Why Team Topologies Matter
Research shows that organizational structure has a direct impact on delivery speed and team autonomy. Cross-functional and platform-enabled structures enable faster, more reliable continuous delivery compared to siloed hierarchies.
Stream-Aligned Teams
Product teams with end-to-end ownership enable up to 3x faster deployment by reducing handovers and clarifying responsibilities.
Source: Leite et al., 2020; López-Fernández et al., 2021
Platform Teams
Horizontal platform teams reduce dependencies by 40-60%, enabling product teams to deploy independently.
Source: López-Fernández et al., 2021
Cognitive Load
Excessive coordination overhead (extraneous cognitive load) is the primary risk factor for team overload. Minimizing dependencies reduces this burden.
Source: Kosch et al., 2023; Krieglstein et al., 2023
Team Autonomy
Decentralized structures foster autonomy through decision-making authority, leading to higher morale and faster decisions.
Source: Moe et al., 2021
Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to the questions engineering leaders ask when trying the assessor for the first time.
How does the assessor score my teams?
We blend autonomy, delivery cadence, cognitive load, and dependency density using weights derived from peer-reviewed research (Leite et al. 2020; Moe et al. 2021; Kosch et al. 2023). Each metric is normalized to a 0-100 scale so you can compare teams at a glance.
Is any of my team data stored or shared?
No. The tool runs entirely in your browser. Team inputs live in local state and optional share links encode data client-side. Nothing is sent to a server unless you explicitly export a file.
What export options are available?
You can export JSON for reuse, CSV for spreadsheets, PNG summaries via the download button, and copy a shareable URL to revisit the same assessment later.
When should we introduce platform or enabling teams?
Research from López-Fernández et al. (2021) and Leite et al. (2020) shows that teams slow down when they depend heavily on other groups for infrastructure or shared services. Our assessor flags teams above five external dependencies to give you a quantitative nudge, but the studies themselves are qualitative. Pair the signal with a retro or developer-experience survey: if people report waiting on shared infra or constant handoffs, it’s time to spin up a lightweight platform or enabling team.
How do we act on high extraneous cognitive load scores?
Kosch et al. (2023) and Krieglstein et al. (2023) recommend trimming meetings, clarifying ownership, and automating handoffs. Treat our ‘overloaded’ flag as a prompt: run a retro with the affected team, prune one dependency or standing meeting at a time, and keep iterating until the cognitive-load indicator drops back to the healthy band.
Can we balance autonomy and governance without chaos?
Yes. Moe et al. (2021) found that community-driven standards (guilds, shared playbooks) plus clear outcome metrics let teams stay autonomous while still aligning to company goals. Use the assessor to identify squads the tool marks as low-autonomy, then add enabling support or shared practices instead of reintroducing central approvals.