Even in an era of AI (perhaps even more so than in prior regimes), I really do believe that a strong shared language with syntax and grammar can help product managers communicate more precisely in order to ship higher-quality products and continue to grow our set of capabilities quickly.
This is the canonical essay about the co-evolution of system design + org design - from that we derive concept of organizational nouns (e.g. teams) and system nouns (e.g. components).
Then we have the concept of organizational verbs (e.g. initiatives) and system verbs (e.g. capabilities).
Initiatives tend to be offensive (they are creating new components + capabilities) and can be staffed by dedicated teams (pods) or people from many different component-oriented teams (squads). That's why they are oriented around CapEx...whereas OpEx is more defensive and tied to maintaining the existing set of components + capabilities. Including a couple diagrams below that I think are helpful showing how development, packaging and marketing fit together with the organizational structure of pillars / teams / pods and work breakdown structure of initiatives and epics to create a roadmap of milestones which connect units of scope (what) with staffing (who) to produce dates (when).
Full talk on product architecture from the Denver Product summit: link
