Hiring Insights
•
Feb 27, 2025
The Key to GTM Systems Innovation: Reporting Structure
GTM Systems teams can be a powerhouse of innovation but most companies get a simple decision wrong — and it ends up holding them back.
Common Reporting Structures
One of the MOST overlooked aspects of scaling GTM Systems: Reporting Structure
This seems like an afterthought for so many companies today but it’s one of the most important decisions you need to make.
In general, there are 4 Org Structures commonly adopted.
Centralized
Full Team reports into CIO or Technology Leader
Siloed
Business Analysts & Product Managers report into Rev Ops
Administrators, Engineers, and Architect report into Technology
Shared Services
Business Analysts and Product Managers report into PMO
Administrators, Engineers, and Architect report into Technology
Revenue Operations
Full Team reports into Revenue Operations
When your portfolio of Internal Tools is only GTM Systems, any of these can work but that’s only the case for early-stage startups.
As soon as multiple teams have a sophisticated systems strategy, only 1 model is correct.
Evolution of Business Systems Ownership
The typical evolution of Business Systems ownership goes like this:
Phase 1: Primarily just a CRM Owned By: Rev Ops
Phase 2: Evolves into a portfolio of GTM Systems Owned By: Rev Ops
Phase 3: Becomes an ecosystem of Internal Applications touching every team Owned By: Centralized Technology Team
As your Tech Stack grows, so does the complexity and managing that properly requires you to centralize the entire team within a single org.
The issue plaguing so many companies today is either moving to a centralized model too late or adopting a centralized model that simply doesn’t work.
How NOT to Centralize the Team
Larger companies have a lot of options when it comes to reporting structure and it turns out this is part of the problem.
Typically, they have some sort of Project Management Office (PMO) or Shared Services team. By definition, these groups are centralized to support the entire business; however, the way they're designed to operate is not consistent with the objective for your Business Systems team.
Shared Services teams are designed to be reactive, responding to the needs of the organization as they arise.
In stark contrast, you want your Business Systems team to PROACTIVELY push strategy forward.
One of the biggest mistakes we see companies make is putting some of the Salesforce or Business Systems functions within these Shared Services groups - most commonly, the Business Analysts and Product Managers.
These are arguably the most critical functions in your Salesforce org and this decision completely detaches them from the broader Salesforce team.
You lose the knowledge-sharing-by-osmosis benefit.
The Business Systems team loses control over how these resources are allocated
The rotating nature of Shared Services groups distances them from stakeholders
This structure limits the ability to innovate and proactively advise stakeholders - instead of a cohesive vision, you get disjointed and isolated deliverables.
It’s the very reason why siloed structures don't work at scale. For example, Rev Ops teams owning of the Salesforce resources with Technology teams managing others means there is no clear decision maker.
The Solution: Centralize and Consolidate
The most effective Business Systems teams bring everything under one roof, unifying all functions needed to manage the end-to-end strategy, build, and support phases.
Planning (Business Analysts, Product Managers)
Long-term product strategy, scalability, governance, and performance.
Building (Architects, Administrators, Engineer)
Flawlessly architected, documented and tested technical solutions.
Running (Administrators)
Proactive & reactive support at all levels of the organization.
This is the only way to truly unify your approach and strategy.
Builds Domain Expertise: Teams that are properly embedded within specific business units gain a nuanced understanding of organizational needs.
Ensures Consistency: While BSAs/PMs are embedded to support specific business units, reporting into a single Technology org allows for prioritization & goal setting the focuses on the org as a whole rather than a single team
Strengthens Relationships: Embedded teams maintain closer ties with stakeholders, leading to better business outcomes.
2 Way to Centralize
Orgs with a CIO or Head of IT
If you have a single Technology Leader, Business Systems lives under them. Period. This is the easiest scenario to get right and creates the ultimate unification of strategy.
Amplitude adopts this model perfectly.
Chief Digital & Information Officer owns Corporate Engineering
Business Systems rolls up there
Distinct Leaders for each workstream:
Head of GTM Process & Applications
Director, Enterprise Technology
Sr. Director, GTM Systems
Sr. Manager, Business Systems
Manager, Business Systems (Integrations)
Orgs without a CIO or Head of IT
Without an obvious place to put Business Systems, this is where companies often stumble and adopt a model that creates a fragmented team.
But Apollo has opted for model that centralizes the team correctly, while also setting an organizational culture emphasizing the value of Internal Tools overall.
VP of Business Systems† reports directly to the CEO with a stated mandate to: “be the architect of Apollo’s next-generation infrastructure”.
This decision makes a clear statement to the organization: Internal Tools are AS IMPORTANT as the core Product and the team is given the visibility required to make a true business impact as a result.
Get Matched to the Right Salesforce Consultant
FoundHQ is the easiest way to get work done in Salesforce.
