BSA Scout Troops, Packs, Crews and Teams are currently administered by separate committees under a chartering organization. (Chartering Organizations are the entity that 'owns' the unit such as a Church, Civic Organization or similar group). Scout Units, even under the same chartered organization, are required to have separate administrative infrastructure. I think that this tends to make Units into islands that makes sharing resources difficult.
The United Kingdom's (Great Britain) Scout Association has a much different structure that bears some examination. (Don't plotz on me and scroll down to the comments yet! I am not making a blanket endorsement of the UK Scout Program. Doubtless they have their shortcomings and difficulties.)
UK Scouting is administered as groups of different sections (Beaver, Cub and Scout) rather than fragmented into separate units. Scout Groups are administered by a Group Scout Leader who oversees the leadership of the various sections. Group Scout Leaders and Section Leaders must maintain appropriate level of training for their role.
I think that the UK group Scouting structure has some advantages. Units assembled into a group can readily share expertise, equipment and resources. A more formalized leadership structure may initially seem restrictive but it has a much greater potential to assure program continuity.
BSA Unit leaders have no formal oversight other than the Committee Chairperson and Chartered Organization Representative. These three roles have no compulsory training requirements so volunteers may take them on with little or no understanding of the job. Much of the time the relationship between these three roles misunderstood and mismanaged for years. As there is no oversight their is no authority empowered to resolve disputes within a Unit. Many units are significantly weakened by squabbling leaders.
Adopting a 'group' model is gaining support on the BSA Innovation Engine (note that presently only Scouting Professionals can actively participate in the Innovation Engine).