Product teams regularly approach platform organizations with requests that make complete business sense. A team launching in new markets needs regional payment processor integration. Another team piloting a new discounting strategy needs a new incentive construct. A third team building an enterprise offering needs custom invoicing capability. These requests are well-scoped and clearly valuable. Yet platform teams must frequently decline them, not because the request lacks merit, but because the platform roadmap is already full of other higher-priority features and capabilities.

Product teams, meanwhile, operate under different constraints. Revenue targets do not adjust for platform capacity. Market launch dates were set months ago. Pricing experiments that could move key metrics cannot wait two quarters for platform prioritization.

This familiar impasse stalls innovation, forces product teams into costly duplication and pits business priorities against engineering reality. While various collaboration models exist (Team Topologies describe interaction modes, or embedded platform experts), these assume the platform team either has capacity to prioritize the work or that product teams should proceed independently.

Away teaming offers a different, resource-neutral mechanism: product teams temporarily assign engineers to build what they need as reusable platform capabilities, under platform guidance. This is the viable way out of the zero-sum game.

Why conventional approaches fail

Platform teams face a resource equation that never balances. Demand consistently exceeds capacity by substantial margins. As a platform engineering leader I receive 3 to 5 times more requests than my team can fulfill in any given quarter.

The standard responses all produce poor outcomes:

• Product teams wait. They miss launch windows. Competitors ship first. The carefully planned go-to-market strategy becomes irrelevant because the timing is wrong.
• Product teams build independently. Within months, the organization accumulates duplicated effort: multiple, incompatible implementations of pricing logic, custom invoicing systems that generate reports in incompatible formats and a spiderweb of technical debt that platform teams will eventually have to reconcile at 3 times the original cost.
• Platform teams accommodate everything. They deliver neither their critical roadmap work nor the product requests well. Engineers burn out. Technical debt compounds. The platform becomes increasingly fragile under the weight of rushed implementations.

The zero-sum framing (platform priorities versus product needs) ensures someone always loses.

How away-teaming restructures the problem

Away teaming inverts the traditional model. Instead of platform engineers embedding with product teams to provide expertise, product engineers temporarily join platform teams to build required capabilities under platform guidance.

This is fundamentally different from the established patterns described in Team Topologies or standard platform collaboration models. While the ‘X-as-a-Service‘ mode assumes the platform team has capacity to fund and build the service, and the ‘Facilitating‘ mode assumes capacity to coach, away teaming addresses the specific scenario where the platform team’s capacity is effectively zero for new feature work, but still has capacity for governance.

Consider an enterprise product team that needs custom invoicing capabilities. The platform team could not prioritize this work. Instead, two engineers from the product team joined the platform team for 8 weeks. Working under platform guidance, they built a general-purpose invoicing service. The product team got their enterprise invoices on schedule. The platform gained a reusable invoicing capability. Four months later, when another product team needed invoicing capability, they could use the same invoicing service. What would have been separate implementations became a single platform capability serving multiple products.

The new resource equation

The product team assigns engineers for a defined period, typically 6 to 8 weeks. These engineers work in the platform codebase, attend platform standups, follow platform coding standards and receive guidance from platform engineers.

Product teams have already secured funding for their initiatives. Away teaming redirects that investment from building a product-specific solution into creating a reusable platform capability.

For platform teams, this expands effective capacity without headcount growth. Platform engineers provide design review, answer questions and conduct code review. They use their expertise without spending execution capacity on implementation work. The platform gains capabilities it could not have funded while maintaining quality standards and consistency.

Establishing the foundation: Essential prerequisites for success

Away teaming is not simply a collaboration technique. It requires specific organizational conditions to function effectively.

1. Executive alignment is critical

This cannot succeed as a platform team initiative alone. Product and platform leadership must jointly commit to the model.

When product teams miss OKRs because engineers were away teaming, product VPs need to view that as an acceptable tradeoff, not a failure. If the VP of product does not openly champion this model, product managers will be incentivized to hoard their engineers, seeing away teaming as a resource drain rather than a strategic investment. The model will die quietly through non-participation.

To successfully pitch this to product leadership, frame the ‘resource loss’ not as a temporary cost, but as a strategic investment in technical risk mitigation. By temporarily funding a reusable platform capability, the product VP is eliminating the 3x reconciliation cost and high-risk technical debt associated with their team building it independently. This protects future velocity and product stability across the organization.

2. The career development framing matters enormously

Product engineers need to view away teaming as a growth opportunity, not a sacrifice.

Frame it explicitly as platform engineering experience that builds broader systems thinking skills and deepens architectural understanding. In organizations that excel at this, an away team assignment is seen as an important point for a Senior Engineer promotion, signaling that the organization values cross-cutting, reusable systems over purely product-specific velocity.

3. Clear governance prevents drift

Someone must decide which requests become away team engagements. Establish a joint platform-product review process that evaluates requests against specific criteria:

• Does the capability serve multiple future products?
• Can the platform team provide meaningful guidance?
• Is the product team willing to accept reduced velocity during the engagement period?

These prerequisites are not optional. Get executive buy-in first. Everything else depends on it.

Execution mechanics: A guide to running away team engagements

Start with a scoping conversation involving both team leads and the engineers who will do the work. Three elements need explicit documentation:

• The business value the product team must deliver.
• The platform standards the work must satisfy.
• The support the platform team will provide.

If any of these three elements cannot be articulated clearly, the opportunity is not suitable for away teaming.

Temporary team membership

Away team members join the platform team operationally. They attend standups, work in platform codebase and receive code review with the same rigor applied to any platform work. This is not a contractor relationship; it is temporary team membership.

However, their connection to their home team remains protected. Regular synchronization with product leadership validates that the work addresses actual requirements.

Guidance, not project management

The platform team provides guidance rather than project management. Platform engineers answer questions about service boundaries and system design, conduct design review and pair on complex challenges. They do not track tasks or manage sprint planning.

Guidance takes real time. Code review for unfamiliar engineers takes longer. A platform team supporting two concurrent away team engagements should expect to spend roughly 10–15 hours per week of senior engineer time on guidance. This is the investment that makes the model work.

Knowledge transfer is non-negotiable

Before an away-teaming engagement concludes, at least one platform engineer must become the ongoing owner of that code. This requires:

• Documentation that explains the why (alternatives considered, tradeoffs made).
• Sufficient test coverage.
• Operational runbooks for production issues.

Away team members typically present their work to the broader platform organization. This ensures the platform team actually understands what they will be maintaining.

Impact & accountability: Measuring success and learning from failure

Away teaming requires measurement to remain credible.

• Track capability reuse. Aim for capabilities that are adopted by two distinct products (beyond the originating team) within six months of creation. If these capabilities serve only their original product team, the generalization effort fails.
• Monitor product team velocity impact. A team losing two engineers for eight weeks should expect 15-20% reduced output. If the impact significantly exceeds this, the away team members are either more critical than anticipated or the product team is understaffed.
• Track engagement outcomes. What percentage of away team engagements deliver working capabilities that meet platform standards? If this falls below 80%, examine common failure modes like insufficient technical depth or inadequate platform support.

When away teaming fails, acknowledge it quickly. Not every engagement will succeed. Failed engagements provide valuable learning about what works and what does not.

When away-teaming does not apply

Some capabilities are too foundational to delegate. Core payment processing that touches every transaction, the base pricing model or revenue recognition logic that must satisfy regulatory requirements all require direct platform ownership even if other work must be delayed.

Away teaming works best for capabilities in the middle ground: too product-specific for immediate platform prioritization, yet general enough that future products will benefit from reuse.

Away teaming also has scale limits. A platform team might effectively support two concurrent away team engagements. Beyond that, guidance capacity becomes strained.

The compounding benefits

The direct value is apparent: platform capabilities that could not otherwise be funded get built. But the secondary effects often prove more valuable:

• Platform advocacy: Product engineers who complete away team assignments become platform advocates. They understand the architectural tradeoffs and can credibly explain platform limitations, reducing tension and frustration between teams.
• Distributed capability: These engineers help their product teams use platform capabilities effectively, spot opportunities for future platform work and design features that integrate cleanly with platform services.
• Compounding capability: Each capability built through away teaming (e.g., custom invoicing, promotional discount engines) becomes available for future products, multiplying the platform’s overall utility.

Platform teams maintain focus on foundational work. Total platform capability expands substantially beyond what direct funding could achieve.

Getting started

Organizations implementing away teaming should begin with one pilot. Choose a product team with a clear platform need and a collaborative orientation. Document how it works, what both teams commit to and how success will be measured. Get explicit executive sponsorship from both platform and product leadership.

The conversation with product teams transforms immediately.

Rather than “we cannot prioritize this,” platform teams propose: “We cannot fund this capability, but you can. Is this important enough to invest engineering bandwidth for a defined period?”

This reframes platform dependency from a blocker into a tractable investment decision that product teams evaluate against their priorities.

Here is the reality that most platform organizations struggle to accept: you will never have enough people to build everything that should be built. Away teaming is not a compromise; it is the funding model that turns a resource constraint into a catalyst for decentralized, reusable capability growth. It is how platform organizations achieve scale while maintaining quality and consistency.

This article is published as part of the Foundry Expert Contributor Network.
Want to join?