Rethinking Product Groups
By Ilia Pavlichenko
To choose an appropriate product group design, the article uses portfolio relatedness patterns from Kates & Kesler / Galbraith: single integrated business, a closely related portfolio, and a loosely related portfolio, showing how in each case the container’s form shifts from a logical layer to a 
In a closely related portfolio (Big Tech platforms, large banks), product groups receive some dedicated functions (sales, parts of marketing, P&L focus), while critical Product & Tech remain centralized to maintain a common platform, engineering culture, and standards. This creates a balance where domain leaders have enough responsibility to grow their domains but are constrained by corporate architectural decisions and standards.
In a loosely related portfolio, product groups become semi‑independent business units with their own product, engineering, sales, marketing, operations, and risk functions, as illustrated by the MTS Kassa case. This structure minimizes dependence on corporate platforms and is especially convenient for transformation, because the head of the product group controls key resources and can change the tech landscape and processes.
This position paper outlines three types of product groups by degree of formalization and autonomy:
- a logical (virtual) group,
- a group with partially dedicated functions,
- and a semi‑independent group.
These types form a continuum between efficiency and synergy from shared functions on one side and speed and differentiation at the product‑group level on the other; choosing among them is not an ideological debate about centralization but a pragmatic response to portfolio relatedness and company strategy.
Download The Full Position Paper
Download: Designing A Product Group.