The piece tackles the question of whether teams within a company should use the same tracking system for their work. The author argues that it’s reasonable to expect a general understanding of what each team is doing. This includes knowledge about their purpose, the customers they serve, recent releases, metrics they aim to improve, and their current priorities. The author suggests that while teams don’t need to provide minute details, they should give rough estimates of how their time is allocated, such as 50% on one project and 30% on another. Communication is vital, especially between departments like product and marketing. The author emphasizes the need for a consistent format for near-term release calendars to avoid confusion and inefficiency. Transparency about what has been deployed and when is also important, even if that information needs to be simplified for non-technical stakeholders. The author warns that when trust diminishes, oversight increases, leading to a cycle of scrutiny that can stifle productivity. The article highlights a notable exception for work that crosses team boundaries. In these cases, having a shared language and consistent systems can significantly enhance collaboration. If a substantial portion of work—30% to 40%—spans multiple teams, they essentially function as one large team. Until underlying issues are resolved, a temporary framework for consistency may be necessary, but teams should not become reliant on it. The author advocates for a flexible approach, allowing teams to choose their tools as long as they maintain critical communication and governance standards.