SaaS Founders: Your Engineering Team Is Not Your Incident Response Team

There is a moment that happens in almost every SaaS company, somewhere between 10 and 50 employees.

The engineering team, which started as three or four people who knew everything about the system and could fix anything in minutes, has grown. There are now fifteen engineers, or twenty-five, or thirty-five. Some of them joined in the last year. Some of them specialise in areas that others don't fully understand. The codebase has grown significantly. The infrastructure has become more complex.

And the incident response process is still the one that worked when the team was four people.

Somebody notices something is wrong. They message the engineering Slack channel. The people who are online start looking at it. Someone who knows that part of the system best gets tagged. They investigate and fix it, or escalate to someone else. Eventually it gets resolved.

At four people, that process worked because everyone knew everything, the communication was inherently shared, and the coordination was effortless. At thirty people, it produces a different pattern: duplicated effort, communication vacuum, escalation delays, and incidents that run longer and cost more than they should.

The process didn't change. The company changed around it.

The Specific SaaS Pressure Points

SaaS companies have a set of incident characteristics that make the challenge of communication and coordination particularly acute.

Customer expectations are exceptionally high. SaaS customers are paying for reliability. When an incident occurs, they are evaluating whether the product lives up to what they paid for. The communication during the incident is part of that evaluation - not a secondary consideration.

SLA commitments create formal obligations. Many SaaS companies have SLA commitments that specify uptime percentages and response times. A major incident that is also an SLA breach triggers a contractual process - credits, notifications, and potentially exit clauses. The communication around the incident needs to account for these obligations. In most early-stage SaaS companies, the person who understands those obligations hasn't been identified on the incident response team.

The technical and non-technical gap is large and fast-moving. Engineering leadership lives close to the technical detail. Sales, customer success, and account management live far from it. During a major incident, the people most visible to customers - account managers, customer success - have the least technical context. Bridging that gap quickly with clear, accurate communication that doesn't require technical interpretation is a specific skill that most SaaS incident processes don't address.

Growth creates new failure modes faster than the process catches up. A SaaS company growing at 50% year-on-year is continuously adding new integrations, new infrastructure, new team members, and new customer commitments. The incident process that was adequate six months ago may already have gaps the team isn't aware of yet.

The Founder Bottleneck

In SaaS companies at the early- to mid-growth stage, there is almost always a founder or founding CTO who is personally involved in every significant incident. They have the deepest knowledge of the system. They have the strongest relationships with key customers. They have the authority to make decisions quickly.

This works. Until it doesn't.

The founder, who is the centre of every incident response, is creating three problems simultaneously. They are a single point of failure. They are preventing their team from developing the incident management capability that the company will need as it scales. And they are spending time on incident response that should be going on strategy, product, and growth.

I've worked with founding CTOs who were handling three to four incidents personally every month. The cumulative drain on their capacity was significant and growing. The team around them was technically excellent but had never been required to run an incident end-to-end without the founder in the room. When the founder took a holiday, everyone quietly hoped nothing would break.

That is not a sustainable operating model for a company that intends to scale.

What the Transition Requires

Moving from founder-dependent incident response to team-executable incident response is not primarily a technical challenge. The team has the technical capability. What they need is the structure, the practice, and the permission.

The structure: clear incident roles that the team fills without deferring to the founder. A P1 declaration process that doesn't require founder sign-off. Communication templates that the customer success team can use without waiting for engineering input on every word.

The practice: incidents - or simulations - where the founder is deliberately not in the room. Where the team has to execute the full response, including the client communication and the leadership briefing, without the safety net of the person who would normally handle it.

The permission: an explicit signal from the founder that the team is trusted to handle incidents independently. That permission needs to be given clearly and demonstrated consistently for the team to internalise it.

The Customer Communication Piece

Most early-stage SaaS companies lack a clear owner for customer communication during incidents. Engineering owns the technical response. Customer success owns the relationship normally. During an incident, both are pulled in different directions, and neither is clearly accountable for what goes to customers.

The result: a communication vacuum while engineering focuses on the fix, and customer success either over-communicates with inaccurate technical information or under-communicates because they don't know what to say.

What's needed is a clear protocol: who writes the first customer communication, what it says, how it gets approved and sent, and at what intervals updates follow. Customer success should own the sending. Engineering should own a brief, plain-language status update that goes to customer success at defined intervals. The two functions work in parallel rather than one waiting on the other.

That protocol needs to be in place before the incident. And it needs to be practised - because the first time customer success writes an incident update under real pressure is not the time to discover that nobody agreed on what it should contain.

Frequently Asked Questions

How should a SaaS company structure its incident response team?

The most effective structure separates the technical response from the communication response. Define three roles for a P1: an incident commander/manager who coordinates the technical team, a technical lead who owns diagnosis and resolution, and a communications lead who owns all outward communication, including customer updates, CEO briefing, and status page. Customer success should be integrated into the communication workflow from the start of the incident, not briefed after the fact.

At what company size should a SaaS company formalise its incident process?

The trigger is usually growth rather than a fixed headcount. When the informal "everyone knows everything" coordination starts breaking down - typically between 15 and 30 engineers - the cost of improvised incident management starts to exceed the cost of building a structured process. Earlier is better; waiting for a significant incident to force the change is the most expensive way to learn this.

How do SaaS companies handle SLA commitments during a major incident?

The person who understands the SLA obligations should be part of the incident response process, not consulted after the fact. This is typically someone from the legal or commercial team. Their job during a P1 is to confirm whether the incident triggers any contractual obligations and to ensure that customer communications reflect those obligations accurately.

What should SaaS companies include in their customer outage communication?

A basic outage communication for SaaS customers should include: what service or feature is affected, confirmation that the team is actively working on resolution, a time for the next update, and a contact point for urgent queries. It should not include technical speculation about causes, promises about resolution times that can't be guaranteed, or language that implies fault without legal review.

If you are interested in a 3-minute assessment that scores your incident communication readiness, click on the link below 👇 👇

https://bit.ly/44ohVXY