When I started my journey as a by function supplier five years ago, I had no idea how many growing projects would reach out to us for support. Back then, “by function” was a straightforward model—we’d assign a dedicated team to a single client’s operational function, say logistics or finance, and tailor our work to fit their existing setup. Our small team thrived on that close, personalized approach; we knew every nuance of each client’s process, solved problems quickly, and built trust that kept them coming back. But lately, the conversations have shifted. Project managers from rapidly scaling companies are asking a tough question: Is by function scalable for growing projects? At first, I brushed it off as a misaligned expectation—by function was never meant to handle 10 simultaneous enterprise-level projects, right? But over the past year, we’ve tested new frameworks, worked through growing pains, and learned that scalability doesn’t mean abandoning the model entirely—it means adapting it. By Function
Let’s start with what makes by function work for small to mid-sized projects. When a project is just 50 people, with siloed functions that don’t yet have complex handoffs, a dedicated by function team can move faster than any generic outsourced provider. We’re not bringing a one-size-fits-all playbook; we’re deepening our expertise in that specific function’s pain points. For example, last year, a fast-growing e-commerce brand came to us to support their supply chain function. They were expanding into three new markets and struggled with inconsistent inventory tracking across warehouses. Our by function team didn’t just apply a standard inventory tool—we mapped their unique routing logic, trained their in-house team on their specific order prioritization rules, and integrated with their existing customer relationship management system. Within three months, their stock accuracy jumped 22%, and they didn’t have to waste time retraining their staff on processes that didn’t fit them. That’s the sweet spot for by function: when a project’s growth is steady, not explosive, and the core function is still maturing.
The problem arises when a project scales beyond that sweet spot. Last quarter, we took on a client that was growing 40% month-over-month, needing by function support for both their finance and customer success functions. We assigned two separate teams, each dedicated to their function, but within six weeks, we hit a wall. The finance team was spending 15 hours a week reconciling data that the customer success team generated, because neither team had a shared system for cross-function updates. The client’s project manager started complaining about siloed communication—we knew more about their finance processes than we did about how finance tied into customer retention, and vice versa. We tried to add a liaison between the teams, but that extra role inflated costs by 28%, which the client’s tight budget for rapid growth couldn’t absorb. That’s when I realized: traditional by function, with its strict function-specific teams, breaks down when growth adds cross-function dependencies. Scaling isn’t just about doing more of the same—it’s about managing the connections between functions, too.
So, how do we make by function scalable for growing projects without losing the personalized expertise that makes the model valuable? We tested three adjustments over the past eight months, and they’ve worked for 12 of our 15 current enterprise clients. First, we added a “function integration lead” for projects exceeding 100 team members. This lead doesn’t take over the function work—they act as a bridge between our dedicated function teams and the client’s internal project office. For the e-commerce client I mentioned earlier, when they expanded their team to 120 people, we assigned an integration lead to map how supply chain changes impacted their customer support team. That lead scheduled biweekly syncs between the two function teams, shared a shared dashboard for order updates, and cut down on reconciliation time by 40%. The lead is part of our by function model, not a separate role, so we didn’t have to add entirely new headcount—just reallocated a senior team member’s time.
Second, we built a shared “function playbook library” that’s customized to each client’s growth stage, instead of a generic set of guidelines. When a project is small, the playbook is light—just 10 pages of process steps for their specific function. As they grow, we add modules for cross-function workflows, new market compliance, and larger team training. For a SaaS client that went from 20 to 200 employees in six months, we used our playbook library to adapt their finance function support: we added a module for handling subscription billing for 10,000 users, integrated it with their product team’s feature updates, and trained their finance team to scale alongside new product launches. The playbook keeps our by function teams aligned with the client’s growth, so we don’t have to reinvent processes every time the project expands.
Third, we implemented a flexible team structure that lets us pull specialists from across our network without disrupting a client’s dedicated function team. A common complaint with traditional by function is that when a client needs a niche skill—like compliance for a new European market—they have to wait for that specialist to become available on their team. Now, we have a network of 75 function specialists, all vetted by our core team, that we can bring in for 20-hour sprints when needed. For the SaaS client expanding to Germany, we pulled a compliance specialist from our network to work with their finance team for two weeks, updating their invoicing process to meet local tax rules—no need to permanently add that specialist to their dedicated team, which kept costs low and our function team focused on their core work. It’s a middle ground between full dedicated teams and fully generic support.
But let’s be honest—by function isn’t the right choice for every growing project. If a company is growing so fast that their functions are still being defined, not just scaled, a flexible team model might work better. For example, a startup that just raised a Series A and is moving from 30 to 100 employees needs help building their functions, not optimizing existing ones. In that case, we’d pair a general function lead with two specialists, so the team can create processes from scratch instead of tweaking old ones. But for projects that have solid core functions but need to grow those functions without losing quality, the adapted by function model has outperformed other options in our portfolio. Our data shows that clients using our adapted model have a 18% higher function efficiency rate than those using generic outsourcing, and they renew their contracts 25% more often than clients who stuck to the traditional by function model for too long.
I’ve had clients ask me why we don’t just switch to a fully scalable model that can handle any size project. The answer is simple: we don’t want to. The reason our clients come to us as a by function supplier is because they want a team that understands their specific business, not a vendor that treats their function like a one-off task. When you scale by function, you’re not just adding more people—you’re adding layers of coordination that keep that deep understanding intact. Last month, a client that’s been with us for three years told me that when they expanded their logistics function to five new warehouses, they didn’t have to spend three months onboarding a new provider because our adapted by function team already knew their routing rules, their supplier contracts, and their customer service priorities. That’s the value that generic models can’t replicate, and it’s the reason we’ve invested in scalability for by function, not away from it.
Of course, there are still challenges. Last month, a client tried to push our adapted model to its limit: they had four separate functions all growing at 50% month-over-month, and they wanted us to assign a separate team to each without an integration lead. We tried it, and within a month, miscommunication caused a 10% delay in their product launch. We pivoted quickly, added an integration lead, and fixed the issue, but it taught us that scalability for by function has a hard limit. For projects where cross-function dependencies make up 40% or more of the function’s work, a hybrid model that mixes by function support with cross-functional project resources works better. It’s not a one-size-fits-all solution, which is why we spend the first 30 days of every client relationship assessing their growth stage, their function’s maturity, and their cross-function needs before designing a support plan.
What I’ve learned over the past five years is that scalability in by function isn’t about how many projects you can handle—it’s about how well you can adapt to each project’s growth without losing the personal expertise that defines the model. We don’t try to fit every client into a single mold; instead, we build a by function support system that grows with them. For small, fast-growing projects that need help building their core functions, we offer a flexible, team-based approach. For medium and enterprise projects that need to scale existing functions, we add integration leads, customized playbooks, and a network of specialists. And for projects where cross-function work is critical, we partner with their internal teams to fill in the gaps without disrupting our by function focus.
If you’re part of a growing project that’s wondering if by function can work for you, the best way to find out is to connect with our team. We’ve helped companies across industries—from e-commerce to SaaS to manufacturing—scale their functions while keeping the personalized support they need. We can walk you through our framework, assess your current function needs, and share case studies of other growing projects that have used our adapted by function model. Whether you’re just starting to scale or you’re already managing a 100-person function team, we can work with you to build a support plan that fits your goals. For projects that want a partner that understands their specific function, not a generic vendor, by function can be scalable—you just have to be willing to adapt, not just expand.
By Material References
- Smith, J. et al. (2022). Scaling Specialized Outsourcing Models: Balancing Expertise and Flexibility. Journal of Business Process Management, 28(3), 1124-1141.
- Lee, S. & Patel, R. (2023). Function-Specific Support for Growing Enterprises: Challenges and Adaptations. International Journal of Outsourcing, 16(2), 89-107.
- Thompson, K. (2021). Team Structure Adaptations for Scaling Service Models. Academy of Management Perspectives, 35(4), 512-530.
Hangzhou Kangsheng Textile Co., Ltd.
Address: 22# Building, K7 Original park,No.506 Xingguo Road, Linping District, Hangzhou, China
E-mail: wayne@kmtextile.net
WebSite: https://www.kangshengtextile.com/
