Comment by Ozzie_osman

> Not that I know how to fix that. You can't have everyone in the entire company spend time looking at every possible thing that might be developed in the near future. Or can you?

You don't need to. I've seen this generally work with some mix of the following:

1. Try to decouple systems so that it's less likely for someone in a part of the org to make changes that negatively impact someone in a more distant part of the org.

2. Some design review process: can be formal "you will write a design doc, it will be reviewed and formally approved in a design committee" if you care more about integrity and less about speed, or can be "write a quick RFC document and share it to the relevant team(s)".

3. Some group of people that have broad context on the system/code-base (usually more senior or tenured engineers). Again, can be formal: "here is the design review committee" or less formal: "run it by these set of folks who know there stuff". If done well, I'd say you can get pretty broad coverage from a group like this. Definitely not "everyone in the entire company". That group can also redirect or pull others in.

4. Accept that the process will be a bit lossy. Not just because you may miss a reviewer, but also, because sometimes once you start implementing the reality of implementation is different than what people expect. You can design the process for this by encouraging POC or draft implementations or spikes, and set expectations that not all code is expected to make it into production (any creative process includes drafts, rewrites, etc that may not be part of the final form, but help explore the best final form).

I've basically seen this work pretty well at company sizes from 5 engineers all the way up to thousands.