The Hacker News post titled "Ask HN: Has anyone tried alternative company models (like a co-op) for SaaS?" poses a question to the community regarding the viability and practicality of employing non-traditional organizational structures, specifically cooperative models, within the Software as a Service (SaaS) industry. The author expresses curiosity about whether any individuals or groups have experimented with such alternative models, seeking real-world examples and insights into their successes, challenges, and overall effectiveness. The core inquiry revolves around the potential compatibility of a cooperative framework, which emphasizes democratic decision-making and shared ownership, with the demands and dynamics of a SaaS business, which typically requires agility, rapid innovation, and potentially significant upfront investment. The author is implicitly asking whether the inherent structure of a cooperative, often associated with flatter hierarchies and distributed authority, could be advantageous or detrimental to navigating the competitive landscape of the SaaS market. The question implies a search for alternative approaches to building and running a SaaS company, potentially motivated by a desire for greater employee empowerment, equitable distribution of profits, or a more socially conscious business model. The author seeks information and experiences from others who may have ventured down this path, effectively crowdsourcing knowledge and perspectives on this less conventional approach to SaaS entrepreneurship.
James Shore's blog post, "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?", paints a utopian vision of a software development environment characterized by remarkable efficiency, unwavering quality, and genuine employee fulfillment. Shore envisions an organization where product engineering is not merely a department, but a holistic approach interwoven into the fabric of the company. This utopian organization prioritizes continuous improvement and learning, fostering a culture of experimentation and psychological safety where mistakes are viewed as opportunities for growth, not grounds for reprimand.
Central to Shore's vision is the concept of small, autonomous, cross-functional teams. These teams, resembling miniature startups within the larger organization, possess full ownership of their respective products, from conception and design to development, deployment, and ongoing maintenance. They are empowered to make independent decisions, driven by a deep understanding of user needs and business goals. This decentralized structure minimizes bureaucratic overhead and allows teams to iterate quickly, responding to changes in the market with agility and precision.
The technical proficiency of these teams is paramount. Shore highlights the importance of robust engineering practices such as continuous integration and delivery, comprehensive automated testing, and a meticulous approach to code quality. This technical excellence ensures that products are not only delivered rapidly, but also maintain a high degree of reliability and stability. Furthermore, the organization prioritizes technical debt reduction as an ongoing process, preventing the accumulation of technical baggage that can impede future development.
Beyond technical prowess, Shore emphasizes the significance of a positive and supportive work environment. The ideal organization fosters a culture of collaboration and mutual respect, where team members feel valued and empowered to contribute their unique skills and perspectives. This includes a commitment to diversity and inclusion, recognizing that diverse teams are more innovative and better equipped to solve complex problems. Emphasis is also placed on sustainable pace and reasonable work hours, acknowledging the importance of work-life balance in preventing burnout and maintaining long-term productivity.
In this ideal scenario, the organization functions as a learning ecosystem. Individuals and teams are encouraged to constantly seek new knowledge and refine their skills through ongoing training, mentorship, and knowledge sharing. This continuous learning ensures that the organization remains at the forefront of technological advancements and adapts to the ever-evolving demands of the market. The organization itself learns from its successes and failures, constantly adapting its processes and structures to optimize for efficiency and effectiveness.
Ultimately, Shore’s vision transcends mere technical proficiency. He argues that the best product engineering organization isn't just about building great software; it's about creating a fulfilling and rewarding environment for the people who build it. It's about fostering a culture of continuous improvement, innovation, and collaboration, where individuals and teams can thrive and achieve their full potential. This results in not only superior products, but also a sustainable and thriving organization capable of long-term success in the dynamic world of software development.
The Hacker News post "If we had the best product engineering organization, what would it look like?" generated a moderate amount of discussion with several compelling comments exploring the nuances of the linked article by James Shore.
Several commenters grappled with Shore's emphasis on small, autonomous teams. One commenter questioned the scalability of this model beyond a certain organizational size, citing potential difficulties with inter-team communication and knowledge sharing as the number of teams grows. They suggested the need for more structure and coordination in larger organizations, potentially through designated integration roles or processes.
Another commenter pushed back on the idea of completely autonomous teams, arguing that some level of central architectural guidance is necessary to prevent fragmented systems and ensure long-term maintainability. They proposed a hybrid approach where teams have autonomy within a clearly defined architectural framework.
The concept of "full-stack generalists" also sparked debate. One commenter expressed skepticism, pointing out the increasing specialization required in modern software development and the difficulty of maintaining expertise across the entire stack. They advocated for "T-shaped" individuals with deep expertise in one area and broader, but less deep, knowledge in others. This, they argued, allows for both specialization and effective collaboration.
A few commenters focused on the cultural aspects of Shore's ideal organization, highlighting the importance of psychological safety and trust. They suggested that a truly great engineering organization prioritizes employee well-being, encourages open communication, and fosters a culture of continuous learning and improvement.
Another thread of discussion revolved around the practicality of Shore's vision, with some commenters expressing concerns about the challenges of implementing such radical changes in existing organizations. They pointed to the inertia of established processes, the potential for resistance to change, and the difficulty of measuring the impact of such transformations. Some suggested a more incremental approach, focusing on implementing small, iterative changes over time.
Finally, a few comments provided alternative perspectives, suggesting different models for high-performing engineering organizations. One commenter referenced Spotify's "tribes" model, while another pointed to the benefits of a more centralized, platform-based approach. These comments added diversity to the discussion and offered different frameworks for considering the optimal structure of a product engineering organization.
Summary of Comments ( 64 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42748394
Several commenters on the Hacker News thread discuss their experiences with or thoughts on alternative company models for SaaS, particularly co-ops. Some express skepticism about the scalability of co-ops for SaaS due to the capital-intensive nature of the business and the potential difficulty in attracting and retaining top talent without competitive salaries and equity. Others share examples of successful co-ops, highlighting the benefits of shared ownership, democratic decision-making, and profit-sharing. A few commenters suggest hybrid models, combining aspects of co-ops with traditional structures to balance the need for both stability and shared benefits. Some also point out the importance of clearly defining roles and responsibilities within a co-op to avoid common pitfalls. Finally, several comments emphasize the crucial role of shared values and a strong commitment to the co-op model for long-term success.
The Hacker News post "Ask HN: Has anyone tried alternative company models (like a co-op) for SaaS?" generated several comments exploring the feasibility and challenges of cooperative models for Software as a Service (SaaS) businesses.
Some commenters expressed skepticism about the scalability of co-op models, particularly for ventures requiring significant upfront investment or rapid growth. They highlighted the potential difficulties in decision-making processes, profit distribution, and attracting external funding compared to traditional hierarchical structures. One commenter questioned the compatibility of democratic decision-making with the fast-paced, competitive nature of the SaaS market. Another raised concerns about the potential for disagreements among worker-owners to hinder agility and responsiveness. The difficulty in offering competitive salaries to attract top talent in a co-op model was also mentioned.
Conversely, other commenters offered more optimistic perspectives, sharing examples of successful co-ops or suggesting strategies for overcoming potential hurdles. One commenter pointed to the potential benefits of increased employee engagement and motivation in a co-op structure, which could lead to higher quality products and services. Another suggested that platform co-ops, which connect independent workers rather than employing them directly, might be a more suitable model for some SaaS applications. The idea of a "steward-ownership" model, where the company is held in trust for a broader purpose rather than individual owners, was also mentioned as a potential alternative.
Several comments focused on the practical aspects of implementing a co-op model, including legal considerations, governance structures, and profit-sharing mechanisms. One commenter recommended researching existing co-op legal frameworks and seeking advice from experienced cooperative businesses. Another emphasized the importance of clearly defining roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes within the co-op.
The discussion also touched on the potential for co-op models to address issues of inequality and promote more equitable distribution of wealth within the tech industry. Some commenters argued that co-ops could offer a more sustainable and socially responsible alternative to traditional capitalist models.
Overall, the comments reflected a diverse range of opinions on the viability and desirability of co-op models for SaaS businesses. While some expressed skepticism about the practical challenges, others highlighted the potential benefits and suggested strategies for successful implementation. The discussion revealed a significant interest in exploring alternative company models and a desire to create more equitable and sustainable businesses within the tech sector.