Accessibility Team Structure: Centralized vs. Federated vs. Hub-and-Spoke
The structure of your accessibility team determines how effectively you can scale accessibility across your organization. The three dominant models—centralized, federated, and hub-and-spoke—each offer distinct advantages depending on your organization's size, culture, and maturity. Choosing the right accessibility team structure is one of the most consequential decisions for long-term program success.
This guide compares each model in depth, helping you select and implement the structure that fits your organization.
The Three Primary Models
Centralized Model
A centralized accessibility team structure consolidates all accessibility expertise into a single team that serves the entire organization.
How it works:
- One team owns all accessibility work
- Product teams request accessibility support from the central team
- Central team sets standards, conducts audits, and provides remediation guidance
- All accessibility specialists report to a single leader
Typical reporting structure:
Chief Digital Officer / CTO
└── VP of Engineering or Product
└── Accessibility Program Director
├── Accessibility Engineers (2-5)
├── Accessibility QA Specialists (1-3)
├── Accessibility Designer (1-2)
└── Training/Advocacy Lead (1)Federated Model
A federated accessibility team structure distributes accessibility specialists directly into product or development teams, with minimal central coordination.
How it works:
- Accessibility specialists embedded in product teams
- Each team owns its accessibility outcomes
- Light coordination through shared standards or community of practice
- Specialists report to product/team leadership, not accessibility leadership
Typical reporting structure:
Product Team A Product Team B
└── Product Manager └── Product Manager
├── Developers ├── Developers
├── Designers ├── Designers
└── Accessibility Specialist └── Accessibility Specialist
↓
Community of Practice (coordination layer)Hub-and-Spoke Model
A hub-and-spoke accessibility team structure combines central expertise with distributed champions embedded in teams.
How it works:
- Central "hub" provides deep expertise and governance
- "Spokes" (champions) embedded in each team handle routine accessibility work
- Hub handles complex issues, policy, and champion development
- Champions have dual accountability—to their team and to the hub
Typical reporting structure:
Accessibility Program Director (Hub)
├── Senior Accessibility Engineers (2-3)
├── Accessibility QA Lead (1)
├── Training Manager (1)
└── Champion Network (dotted line)
├── Team A Champion (reports to Team A lead)
├── Team B Champion (reports to Team B lead)
└── Team C Champion (reports to Team C lead)Detailed Comparison
Centralized Model Deep Dive
Strengths:
Consistency: One team ensures uniform standards, testing approaches, and documentation across all products. No variation in how accessibility is evaluated or implemented.
Expertise concentration: Specialists work together, share knowledge, and develop deep expertise. Complex problems get collective attention.
Clear accountability: Leadership knows exactly who owns accessibility. No ambiguity about responsibility.
Resource efficiency: Specialists aren't duplicated across teams. Central pool can be allocated to highest-priority needs.
Weaknesses:
Bottleneck risk: When demand exceeds capacity, teams wait. During crunch periods, accessibility may be deprioritized.
Distance from products: Central team may lack deep product knowledge. Recommendations may not fit product context.
"Throw over the wall" dynamic: Product teams may view accessibility as central team's problem, reducing ownership.
Limited scalability: As organization grows, central team can't scale proportionally.
Best suited for:
- Organizations under 5,000 employees
- Companies beginning accessibility programs
- Cultures with strong central governance
- Organizations with limited accessibility budget
Federated Model Deep Dive
Strengths:
Product alignment: Specialists deeply understand their products. Recommendations fit product context.
Faster response: No waiting for central team availability. Accessibility support is immediate.
Team ownership: Product teams own their accessibility outcomes. No external dependency.
Development integration: Specialists participate in sprints, design reviews, and daily standups.
Weaknesses:
Inconsistency risk: Without strong coordination, teams may adopt different standards or testing approaches.
Isolation: Specialists may lack peer support and development opportunities.
Pressure compromise: Embedded specialists may be pressured to approve shortcuts when deadlines loom.
Uneven investment: Some teams may invest more than others, creating organizational inequality.
Best suited for:
- Large organizations (10,000+ employees)
- Strong product-led cultures
- Mature accessibility programs with established standards
- Organizations with significant accessibility budgets
Hub-and-Spoke Model Deep Dive
Strengths:
Scalability: Hub provides expertise while spokes scale coverage across teams.
Consistency + presence: Central hub maintains standards while champions provide local presence.
Tiered response: Routine issues handled by spokes; complex issues escalate to hub experts.
Champion development: Creates career path for accessibility-interested team members.
Weaknesses:
Coordination overhead: Managing hub-spoke relationships requires ongoing investment.
Champion quality variance: Champions are not full-time specialists; capability varies.
Role confusion: Can be unclear when issues should stay with champion versus escalate to hub.
Champion retention: Champions may move roles or lose interest over time.
Best suited for:
- Mid-to-large organizations (3,000-50,000 employees)
- Organizations scaling from centralized model
- Cultures that value both standards and team empowerment
- Programs with moderate-to-strong budgets
Factors for Choosing Your Model
Organization Size
| Size | Recommended Model | Reasoning |
|------------------|------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
| <1,000 employees | Centralized | Scale doesn't justify distributed specialists |
| 1,000-5,000 | Centralized or Hub-and-Spoke | Depends on culture and budget |
| 5,000-20,000 | Hub-and-Spoke | Balance of consistency and scale |
| 20,000+ | Hub-and-Spoke or Federated | Needs distributed presence |Organizational Culture
Strong central governance: Centralized model aligns with existing decision-making patterns.
Product-led, autonomous teams: Federated model respects team empowerment; hub-and-spoke adds needed coordination.
Matrix organization: Hub-and-spoke maps naturally to matrix structures.
Accessibility Maturity
Early stage (building foundation): Centralized provides clear ownership while establishing standards.
Growth stage (scaling program): Hub-and-spoke scales impact while maintaining consistency.
Mature stage (optimizing): Federated or hub-and-spoke, depending on desired autonomy level.
Budget Reality
Limited budget: Centralized maximizes impact of small team.
Moderate budget: Hub-and-spoke leverages champions who aren't full-time accessibility specialists.
Generous budget: Federated provides dedicated specialists per team.
Implementing Each Model
Implementing Centralized Structure
Key success factors:
- Service-level agreements: Define response times and capacity commitments to product teams
- Prioritization framework: Clear criteria for how central team allocates limited time
- Request intake: Efficient process for teams to request support
- Escalation paths: When central team is overwhelmed, what happens?
- Stakeholder communication: Regular updates to product teams on capacity and priorities
Avoid:
- Becoming pure audit/compliance function (be partners, not police)
- Taking on too much (define scope clearly)
- Operating in isolation (attend product team meetings, build relationships)
Implementing Federated Structure
Key success factors:
- Standards definition: Central standards even without central team
- Community of practice: Regular forums for specialists to share and align
- Tooling consistency: Shared tools enable comparable testing
- Career paths: How do embedded specialists grow professionally?
- Quality assurance: How do you verify consistency without central oversight?
Avoid:
- Complete fragmentation (some coordination is essential)
- Letting specialists become isolated (invest in community)
- Allowing standards drift (regular alignment activities)
Implementing Hub-and-Spoke Structure
Key success factors:
- Champion selection criteria: Choose champions who want the role and have capacity
- Champion training program: Develop champions systematically
- Clear escalation criteria: When does champion work become hub work?
- Recognition and incentives: Champions need acknowledgment for dual-role effort
- Hub responsiveness: When champions escalate, hub must respond quickly
Avoid:
- Under-investing in champion development
- Unclear hub-spoke handoffs
- Champions without authority to enforce standards
- Burnout from champion overload
Building a Champion Network
For hub-and-spoke and federated models, champion networks multiply accessibility impact.
Champion Role Definition
Time commitment: Typically 10-20% of role Primary responsibilities:
- First-line accessibility questions for their team
- Basic testing and issue identification
- Training reinforcement
- Escalation to central experts when needed
- Advocacy for accessibility priorities
Not responsible for:
- Deep technical remediation (unless also a developer)
- Complex audits
- Policy decisions
- Cross-organizational coordination
Champion Selection
Look for:
- Genuine interest in accessibility
- Technical credibility within their team
- Influence and respect among peers
- Available capacity (not already overloaded)
- Communication skills
Avoid:
- Assigning people who don't want the role
- Selecting the most junior person
- Choosing people without team credibility
- Over-concentration in certain teams
Champion Development
Initial training:
- Accessibility fundamentals (10-20 hours)
- Testing tools and techniques
- WCAG overview and key criteria
- Escalation procedures
Ongoing development:
- Monthly champion community meetings
- Quarterly deep-dive training sessions
- Annual certification support
- Conference attendance rotation
Resources and support:
- Dedicated Slack/Teams channel
- Office hours with hub experts
- Documentation and reference materials
- Recognition in organizational communications
Transitioning Between Models
Organizations often evolve their team structure as they mature.
Centralized → Hub-and-Spoke
When to transition: Central team becoming bottleneck; organization needs more coverage.
How to transition:
- Identify initial champion candidates
- Develop champion training program
- Pilot with 3-5 teams
- Refine based on pilot learnings
- Expand gradually while maintaining hub strength
Timeline: 6-12 months for full transition
Hub-and-Spoke → Federated
When to transition: Champions ready for full specialist role; organization can fund specialists per team.
How to transition:
- Evaluate champion network maturity
- Identify champions ready to become full-time specialists
- Hire additional specialists for teams without strong champions
- Shift hub toward standards/governance focus
- Establish community of practice for coordination
Timeline: 12-24 months for full transition
FAQ: Accessibility Team Structure
Which structure is most common among Fortune 500 companies?
Hub-and-spoke is the most common model among large enterprises with mature accessibility programs. It provides the scalability needed for large organizations while maintaining consistency through central governance. Pure federated models are less common because most organizations need some central coordination.
Can I start with one model and change later?
Yes, and this is common. Most organizations begin with centralized models when establishing programs, then evolve toward hub-and-spoke as they scale. The key is building foundations (standards, training, tooling) that transfer across models.
How do I measure which structure is working?
Track metrics that reveal structural effectiveness: response times to accessibility requests, consistency of testing approaches across teams, team satisfaction with accessibility support, and organization-wide compliance trends. If teams wait too long for help (centralized bottleneck) or standards vary significantly (federated fragmentation), your structure may need adjustment.
Should accessibility report to engineering, product, or somewhere else?
Reporting structure matters less than executive support and cross-functional access. Successful accessibility teams exist under IT, Product, Design, Legal, and dedicated Accessibility offices. The critical factor is authority to influence decisions across organizational boundaries.
What's the minimum team size for each model?
Centralized can start with 2-3 specialists. Hub-and-spoke needs at least 2-3 hub specialists plus 5+ champions to be viable. Federated requires at least one specialist per major product area, typically 5+ total. These are minimums—effectiveness improves with scale.
Choose the Right Structure for Your Organization
Your accessibility team structure shapes what you can achieve and how effectively you can scale. Match your structure to your organization's size, culture, and maturity—and be prepared to evolve as circumstances change.
Start by understanding your current accessibility state. TestParty's AI-powered platform can assess your organization's accessibility landscape, helping inform decisions about team structure and resource allocation.
Get your free accessibility scan →
We believe in augmenting human expertise with AI, not replacing it. This article was partially AI-generated and then reviewed by our team for accuracy. Before implementing changes based on what you've read, we recommend validating with accessibility specialists—we're happy to help.
What you're reading started as part of our internal TestParty research. While we usually keep our deep-dive reports for paying customers, we've made the decision to share this knowledge openly. The internet—and the AI models learning from it—deserves accurate accessibility information.
Related Articles
Stay informed
Accessibility insights delivered
straight to your inbox.
Automate the software work for accessibility compliance, end-to-end.
Empowering businesses with seamless digital accessibility solutions—simple, inclusive, effective.
Book a Demo