Seems to me the problem is the shared libraries. Yes, without sharing it means you have to repeat a fair amount of code, but in most cases the representation that each service cares about is not necessarily the same, which reduces the value of these shared libraries. It seems that they would have solved a lot of the really critical issues by simply not sharing as much code.
I maintained the shared library for five teams trying to move data around.
The biggest challenge is making the shared library forward and backward compatible with itself for at least a few releases in either direction, because not everyone will redeploy at the exact same moment.
If you can't solve that problem everything gets painful. Doing that right was the second hardest part of that job (meetings were the hardest). The job title (securing the data interchange) came in third place.
Or use versioning and a package manager. You should be able to introduce vNext and then have each service update at its own pace, with a deprecation strategy so that service owners are responsible to get off the old version by such-and-such time. But as others mentioned, part of the problem seems to be too many services given the size of the team.
