> This is a sweeping statement.
It also can quickly degrade to being horribly untrue. A product team justifies its headcount and activity decisions in a silo.
The product owner justifies a budget that translates roughly into team size and then sets to work on whatever satifies the objectives they've been given.
But a recurring truth of large organisations is that silos evolve to justify their own existence and size. You keep having $N people costing $X working on product $T because the product owner justified it to someone, not because it delivers the high benefits realization across the organisation.
The article's "New Silos" section just sweeps this to the side with "but it's better than the old silos". And it can be, but isn't definitively so. Any autonomous unit runs these risks, and unless the unit has its own P&L (with a real source of income, not just money taken from other people) preventing it from becoming bloated and serving its own desires (over the objectives of the organisation) takes hard work and requires proper oversight.