Three teams are building nearly the same thing.
What we noticed
Digital Infrastructure is building one place for company data. Two other teams are separately buying or building their own version, with their own budgets.
Sources: DOC-312 · DOC-241 · 1 quoted interviews · 2 numbers with their arithmetic
Where this came from
We looked at this from both sides: what the documents record, and what people inside the company say.
Two sources, laid over each other
Both say the same thingThe documents say
Three separate project plans, each describing itself as the company-wide data platform. Three budgets, three timelines.
5 documents · 3 teams
The people say
Each team believes it has the mandate. None was ever told otherwise. Two found out about the others by accident.
94 people · 3 businesses
“Nobody told us to stop. So we kept going.”
What the two together tell us
Documents and people agree completely here. That's what makes it easy: this isn't a disagreement to resolve, it's a decision nobody has made.
Documents and people point the same way. That makes this the safest thing to act on.
What it would be worth
Two kinds of value. What the company gains, and what changes for the people doing the work.
What it's worth to the company
$28M / yr
Spent three times over
Three teams building close to the same thing.
What it's worth to the people
Ninety-four people stop working on something that will be cancelled.
- Two teams get their year back for work that will actually ship.
- No more discovering a competing project in a town hall.
- One clear owner means one clear roadmap.
Engineer-years at risk
~40
Work likely to be thrown away if the decision keeps waiting.
Why we noticed it
We read all three project plans. They want almost the same thing. None of them mentions the other two.
- 3 project plans, nearly the same requirements
- 3 budgets, no shared review
- 2 of them already talking to suppliers
Same pattern in 4 documents · 3 teams
Why it could matter
Three separate systems that can't talk to each other quietly rule out anything that needs the whole company's data.
The saved money is the small part. The bigger part: one shared data base is what makes company-wide ideas like PS-014 possible at all.
What we don't know yet
- Whether one of the teams has a rule or constraint that makes sharing impossible.
- How far the supplier talks have gone.
The question
Do these three really need to be separate?