Cross-Domain Dependencies Analysis

Overview

Total issues analyzed: 136

Engineering domain: 87 issues
Operations domain: 49 issues
Cross-domain involvement: 96 issues (70.6%)

Key Finding: 71% of issues involve both Engineering and Operations, indicating high interdependence between domains.

Handoff Points

Engineering → Operations (13 issues)

Pattern: Engineering makes technical decision, Operations executes customer-facing rollout

Common scenarios:

V3 hardware launch: Engineering develops/validates → Operations manages customer swaps, training, communication
Firmware updates: Engineering releases OTA update → Operations supports customers through update process, handles failures
Product changes: Engineering designs new feature → Operations updates training materials, customer documentation
Issue resolution: Engineering fixes bug → Operations communicates fix to affected customers, manages replacements

Typical latency breakdown:

Engineering decision: Quick (days)
Ops execution: Slow (weeks to months) due to customer coordination

Bottleneck analysis:

Average end-to-end latency for Engineering→Operations handoffs: 17.6 days
Root cause: Operations execution depends on customer availability, logistics, and training schedules
Impact: Engineering velocity is masked by ops execution delays; technical solutions sit idle waiting for deployment

Operations → Engineering (19 issues)

Pattern: Operations identifies customer issue, Engineering investigates and fixes

Common scenarios:

Customer bug reports: Support (Tin) logs issue → Engineering (UTF Labs) debugs and patches firmware
Hardware failures: Customer reports battery/charging issue → Engineering investigates root cause, updates V3 design
Feature requests: Sales/training identifies customer need → Engineering evaluates feasibility, implements if viable
Training gaps: Steve discovers product usability issue during training → Engineering improves UX or adds features

Typical latency breakdown:

Problem identification: Quick (customer reports immediately)
Engineering triage: Medium (days to weeks to prioritize)
Engineering fix: Slow (weeks to months depending on complexity)

Bottleneck analysis:

Average end-to-end latency for Operations→Engineering handoffs: 37.0 days
Root cause: Engineering bandwidth constraints; customer issues compete with roadmap work
Impact: Customers wait long periods for fixes while Engineering prioritizes new development

Dependency Bottlenecks

Sequential Work (One domain waits for the other)

Scenario 1: V3 Rollout

Issue: Engineering decides V3 is ready → Operations must coordinate customer swaps
Latency: Engineering decision in Q1 2025 → Operations still executing swaps in Q4 2025 (9+ months)
Bottleneck: Operations capacity to schedule training, ship units, coordinate returns
Recommendation: Parallelize ops work by batching customers, hiring temporary logistics support for large rollouts

Scenario 2: Battery Safety Issue

Issue: Customer reports battery overheating → Engineering investigates → Operations recalls affected units
Latency: Initial report → Engineering root cause (weeks) → Operations recall execution (months)
Bottleneck: Engineering must complete investigation before Operations can act; no interim mitigation
Recommendation: Create "fast path" protocol for safety issues with pre-approved interim actions (e.g., immediate recall while investigation proceeds)

Scenario 3: Firmware Bug Fixes

Issue: Customer reports software bug → Engineering fixes → Operations notifies customers and guides update
Latency: Bug report → Engineering fix (weeks) → Ops customer communication (days)
Bottleneck: Engineering fix is on the critical path; Operations is fast once fix is ready
Recommendation: Maintain prioritized bug queue with <7 day SLA for customer-impacting issues

Parallel Work (Both domains work simultaneously)

Limited evidence of parallel work in the dataset. Most issues follow sequential patterns, suggesting:

Opportunity: More issues could be parallelized if Engineering and Operations plan together upfront
Example: While Engineering finalizes V3 firmware, Operations could simultaneously prepare training materials, sales collateral, and logistics

Current parallel work examples:

Documentation updates (can happen while Engineering develops features)
Sales outreach for V3 upgrades (can happen while Engineering finalizes production units)

Integration Points (High-Friction Zones)

1. V3 Product Launch (35+ issues)

Domains involved: Engineering (hardware, firmware), Operations (training, sales, logistics, finance)
Friction: Engineering treats V3 as "done" when units ship; Operations treats it as "starting" when customer adoption begins
Impact: Misaligned expectations on launch readiness; Engineering moves to next project while Operations still ramping up deployments
Recommendation: Define "launch" as "X% customer adoption" not "units shipped"; keep Engineering engaged post-ship for support

2. Battery Safety Issues (50+ occurrences)

Domains involved: Engineering (root cause, design fix), Operations (customer communication, recalls, replacements)
Friction: Engineering wants data to investigate; Operations wants immediate customer action to prevent incidents
Impact: Tension between "investigate first" (Engineering) vs "act first" (Operations)
Recommendation: Safety issue protocol with immediate interim action (Operations) + parallel investigation (Engineering)

3. Firmware OTA Updates (20+ issues)

Domains involved: Engineering (firmware development), Operations (customer update support, failure triage)
Friction: Engineering pushes updates assuming smooth deployment; Operations handles customer confusion, failures, and rollback requests
Impact: OTA updates become support burden; customer trust erodes with each failed update
Recommendation: Engineering owns end-to-end update experience including failure recovery; Operations provides customer communication only

4. Training & Onboarding (19 issues)

Domains involved: Engineering (product design, documentation), Operations (training delivery, customer success)
Friction: Engineering designs features without training consideration; Steve discovers usability gaps during customer sessions
Impact: Training becomes workaround documentation rather than enablement; customer satisfaction suffers
Recommendation: Steve reviews new features pre-launch to identify training needs; Engineering iterates on UX based on training feedback

5. Pricing & Product Positioning (10 issues)

Domains involved: Engineering (cost structure, BOM), Finance (pricing strategy), Sales (customer quotes)
Friction: Engineering changes affect costs; Finance adjusts pricing; Sales has stale quotes in-market
Impact: Quote discrepancies, customer confusion, margin erosion
Recommendation: Product change freeze 30 days before major sales push; centralized pricing single source of truth

Recommendations

1. Establish Handoff Protocols

For Engineering → Operations handoffs:

Criteria: Engineering provides Operations with 2-week notice before customer-facing changes
Deliverables: Release notes, training guide, support FAQ, rollback plan
Accountability: Engineering tags Operations point of contact in decision; Operations confirms readiness before launch

For Operations → Engineering handoffs:

Criteria: Operations categorizes customer issues by severity (critical/high/medium/low)
Deliverables: Structured bug report with repro steps, customer impact, workaround status
Accountability: Engineering commits to SLA by severity (critical: 48h, high: 1 week, medium: 2 weeks, low: backlog)

2. Create Cross-Functional Rituals

Weekly Engineering-Operations Sync (30 min):

Attendees: Quan, Charlie/Kristin, Steve, Tin
Agenda:
- Upcoming releases requiring ops support
- Customer escalations requiring engineering attention
- Blocked issues waiting on other domain
Goal: Catch handoff delays before they become month-long gaps

Monthly Product Launch Planning (60 min):

Attendees: Full Engineering + Operations leadership
Agenda:
- Roadmap review: what's launching in next 90 days
- Operations readiness assessment: training, sales, logistics
- Risk identification: cross-domain dependencies
Goal: Align on launch definition, avoid surprise "we're not ready" at ship date

3. Parallel Work by Default

Principle: Don't wait for perfect to start adjacent work

Examples:

Operations creates V3 training materials while Engineering finalizes firmware (90% certainty is enough)
Sales begins customer outreach for V3 swaps while Engineering completes final QC (creates demand pull)
Finance updates pricing models while Engineering validates costs (iterate together vs sequentially)

Implementation: In decision meetings, explicitly ask "What can happen in parallel?" and assign parallel work streams

4. Shared Success Metrics

Problem: Engineering measured on "features shipped"; Operations measured on "customer satisfaction"

Conflict: Engineering ships fast, Operations deals with fallout

Solution: Shared metric for product launches

Metric: "Time to X% customer adoption with <Y% support escalation rate"
Example: "V3 launch is successful when 80% of eligible customers have swapped with <5% requiring >2 support tickets"
Effect: Engineering owns post-ship support load; Operations incents fast adoption

5. Dedicated Integration Roles

Consider creating explicit cross-domain roles:

Option A: Technical Operations Lead

Reports to: Operations
Works with: Engineering daily
Responsibility: Translate engineering changes into operational execution plans, triage customer technical issues before escalating to Engineering
Benefit: Reduces handoff latency by embedding technical understanding in Operations

Option B: Customer Engineering Liaison

Reports to: Engineering
Works with: Operations daily
Responsibility: Monitor customer-reported issues, prioritize engineering backlog based on customer impact, participate in training sessions to understand field realities
Benefit: Keeps Engineering connected to customer pain even after product ships

Recommendation: Start with informal role definition (Steve already acts as this liaison for training); formalize as team scales

Key Insight

The data shows Engineering and Operations are highly interdependent but operate with independent success criteria and timelines. Engineering optimizes for development velocity; Operations optimizes for customer satisfaction. This creates a persistent tension:

Engineering perspective: "We shipped V3, issue resolved"
Operations perspective: "Customers are still on V2, issue ongoing"

To improve overall velocity: Redefine "done" as customer adoption, not code completion. Make Engineering accountable for operational success, and give Operations earlier input into engineering decisions.

Specific high-leverage changes:

✅ V3 rollout: Treat as 2026 cross-functional initiative, not 2025 engineering project
✅ Battery safety: Create joint Engineering-Operations "Code Red" protocol with pre-defined roles
✅ OTA updates: Engineering owns update success rate as KPI, not just "update released"
✅ Training integration: Steve reviews engineering changes pre-release, identifies training burden early
✅ Shared planning: Weekly Engineering-Operations sync to surface blockers before they age into month-long delays