The Spotify Model – real or hype?

Reading time

2 min

Let’s look at an example of the momentum that builds around an attractive “Agile solution”.

In 2012, Henrik Kniberg & Anders Ivarsson published the article “Scaling Agile @ Spotify”. This discussed an approach which Spotify had been using to manage organizational structure as the organization scaled. It was a very well written and interesting article. I’d recommend you read it if you have never done so. It also got some great feedback at the time for the ideas that Spotify was exploring.

From the very start of the article, Kniberg and Ivarsson are very clear that this is a discussion of some ideas proposed by a growing organization as part of continuous and incremental change. Spotify was exploring ideas and ways of working.

This article is only a snapshot of our current way of working – a journey in progress, not a journey completed. By the time you read this, things have already changed.
“Scaling Agile @ Spotify” – Kniberg and Ivarsson

An introduction to the model

The article proposed an organisational structure of small teams (“squads”) in product-based groupings (“tribes”). Since the teams were cross-functional, communities of practice (“guilds”) were used to share knowledge in one area and technology groups (“chapters”) to keep technical alignment between teams.

Image from“Scaling Agile @ Spotify” – Kniberg and Ivarsson

Many people viewed the proposals as “the answer” for small organizations. “The Spotify Model” became an approach that companies sought to adopt. From there it became a promise of success which could be marketed. There became training courses on the approach, and even certification in its use.

This feels uncomfortable, since the training and certification are independent of the authors. As with “Agile” certification, there was no central standard. The certification was unconnected to the company that developed and used the process. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence that the approach was never more than a theoretical model. It was never really thoroughly implemented, even at Spotify. The authors have, I feel, been a little bemused by the overall response as this note by Kniberg shows.

It wasn’t actually intended to be a generic framework or “model” at all.
It’s just an example of how one company works.
Henrik Kniberg (2015)

Good practices

To an extent, people completely missed the point with “The Spotify Model”. Kniberg’s article wasn’t a carefully planned methodology. It wasn’t a perfect structure that could be copied to copy Spotify’s successes. It was intended as a case study.

However it was not a case study in the process itself. The article was more about how Spotify was excelling in continuous improvement as it scaled. As an Agile leader you should focus on the improvement process, not copying a result.