Skip to content
AuditFront
TEAM-2 Tech Due Diligence

Tech Due Diligence TEAM-2: Engineering Team Structure and Capabilities

What This Control Requires

The assessor evaluates the engineering team's structure, size, skill mix, seniority distribution, and whether the team's capabilities are aligned with the current and future technical requirements of the product and business.

In Plain Language

In most technology companies, the engineering team is the most valuable asset. Its composition, structure, and capabilities directly determine whether the product roadmap is achievable or just wishful thinking. During DD, we assess whether the team has the right mix of skills, experience, and organisational structure to both maintain what exists today and deliver on future plans. We look at total team size relative to the codebase and product complexity, seniority distribution, skill coverage across key technical domains (frontend, backend, infrastructure, data, security), how the team is organised (feature teams, platform teams, component teams), the ratio of engineering to other functions (product, design, QA), and the calibre of technical leadership. A well-structured team with the right capabilities reduces execution risk. A team that is too small for the product scope, missing critical skills, or poorly organised is a clear signal that future plans will be late, lower quality, or both. We also assess team stability through tenure and turnover data as an indicator of broader organisational health.

How to Implement

Define your team structure and make it visible. Document the organisational chart with reporting relationships, team composition, role definitions and expectations at each level, and the reasoning behind the current structure. Aim for a healthy seniority distribution. A well-balanced team typically looks like 20-30% senior engineers setting technical direction and mentoring, 40-50% mid-level engineers delivering features independently, and 20-30% junior engineers growing under guidance. A mostly junior team creates execution risk. An all-senior team may signal difficulty scaling. Ensure you have coverage across all required technical domains. For a typical SaaS company, that means frontend engineering, backend/API development, database and data engineering, infrastructure and DevOps, security (at least part-time or shared), and QA/testing. Identify gaps and address them through hiring or targeted training. Choose a team topology that fits your product architecture. For smaller teams under 15 people, a single cross-functional team usually works well. As you grow, consider feature teams aligned to product areas with end-to-end capability, platform teams providing shared services and infrastructure, and enabling teams that support others with specialised skills. Track team health through meaningful metrics: velocity trends (stable or improving), annual turnover rate (below 15% is healthy), employee satisfaction, time to productivity for new hires, and the ratio of planned to unplanned work. Maintain a skills matrix mapping team members to technical competencies. This helps you spot gaps, plan training, and verify that critical skills are not concentrated in single individuals.

Evidence Your Auditor Will Request

  • Engineering organisation chart and team structure documentation
  • Team skills matrix showing competency coverage
  • Seniority distribution across the engineering team
  • Team health metrics (turnover rate, satisfaction, velocity)
  • Hiring plan addressing identified skill gaps

Common Mistakes

  • Team too small for the product scope; unable to maintain quality while delivering features
  • Critical skill gaps (no DevOps, no security expertise, no frontend specialist)
  • Top-heavy team with high costs but limited scaling capacity
  • Junior-heavy team without sufficient senior guidance and mentoring
  • Team structure misaligned with product architecture; communication overhead is high

Related Controls Across Frameworks

Framework Control ID Relationship
ISO 27001 A.6.1 Related

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the right team size for due diligence?
There is no universal right answer. It depends entirely on product complexity, growth stage, and ambition. We evaluate whether the team is appropriately sized for what it actually needs to accomplish. A team of 5 building a focused SaaS product may be perfectly fine, while the same 5 people trying to maintain a complex multi-product platform would clearly be understaffed.
Is outsourced or offshore development a concern?
Not inherently. What we evaluate is how tightly integrated external developers are with the core team, whether permanent staff control core IP and architectural decisions, the quality of code the external team produces, and the risk of knowledge loss if the outsourcing arrangement ends. A well-managed external team is fine; a dependency on one you cannot replace is not.

Track Tech Due Diligence compliance in one place

AuditFront helps you manage every Tech Due Diligence control, collect evidence, and stay audit-ready.

Start Free Assessment