Answer.

The architecture of teams (organizational structure) directly influences the architecture of corporate IT systems. This is linked to "Conway's Law": a system developed by an organization reflects the communication structures of the teams.

If you design a system considering cross-functional teams, it becomes possible to distribute responsibility across domains, minimize intersections, and reduce architectural dependencies.

Example of defining areas of responsibility and architectural boundaries:

In each domain, its own team is responsible; API contracts are maximally formalized, and interaction occurs through public or event-driven interfaces. This simplifies scaling development and speeds up responses to changes.

Key features:

• Architectural boundaries align with the teams' areas of responsibility
• Reduced number of inter-team dependencies
• Easier to implement new features and manage their lifecycle

Trick questions.

Question: Can one team be tasked with maintaining several large domains at once?

In large systems — no, this leads to overload and bottlenecks in communications. It’s better to assign teams based on the principle of "one domain — one team".

Question: Should the boundaries of microservices always coincide with the boundaries of teams?

Ideally — yes, but in practice, this is not always possible. However, striving for this is necessary to optimize communications and reduce the number of inter-service integrations.

Question: Is it important to coordinate architectural decisions among teams if they are completely independent?

Yes, it is critically important! To prevent a "technology zoo" and maintain integration standards, architectural coordination is necessary, for example, through architectural committees or guilds.