Paper

Small teams and the cost of coordination

Forja Studio

·

·

11 pages

A short position paper on why we cap client count, with delivery timing data from our first two years. Projects staffed by three or fewer people shipped faster at every scope band we measured, and the gap widened with scope rather than narrowing. We argue the mechanism is coordination cost, not talent, and describe the operating choices that follow from taking the data seriously.

This is the paper we point to when someone asks why the studio stays small.

Key findings:

  • Projects staffed by three or fewer shipped faster at every scope band in our first two years

  • The gap widened with scope: on the largest band, small teams shipped in roughly half the calendar time

  • Adding a person to a late project extended delivery in four of the five cases where we tried it

The mechanism is not talent. It is coordination: every added person adds channels, and channels add latency to every decision. Small teams also refuse scope more honestly, because there is nobody to absorb the padding.

Operating consequences: we cap concurrent clients, we staff three or fewer to a project by default, and when a project feels too big for three we treat that as a scoping failure rather than a staffing problem.

Data covers every engagement from our first two years, with delivery measured against the scope band agreed at kickoff.

CITATION

Forja Studio. (2025). Small teams and the cost of coordination. Forja Studio.

CONFRONTO

More research

All

Strategy

Engineering

Process

Opinion

Field notes

FORJA

MENU

Create a free website with Framer, the website builder loved by startups, designers and agencies.