I just finished reading this article http://www.infoq.com/resource/articles/scaling-lean-agile-feature-teams/Message 1 of 6 , Dec 1 9:40 PMView SourceI just finished reading this article http://www.infoq.com/resource/articles/scaling-lean-agile-feature-teams/en/resources/feature%20teams_%20infoq_%20final.pdf;jsessionid=AE2B00BB49FEFEDAAB94276D2587A74DIt talks about having feature based teams and you can split your 15 member team (I assume 15 members include dev, test, analysts and not managers) into smaller feature teams.Thanks,Ashwanth
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Mark Levison
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:00 PM
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Team Size or reasons that we shouldn't allow teams to grow larger than 12
Recently one of the teams in my area has grown to the size of 15 and I see its having an impact on them. Before I sit down with the manager in question and discuss the pitfalls of a team this size I wanted to make sure I have my ducks lined up.
Off the top of my very tired brain here are the reasons I can think:
1) Standup has become a sitdown and runs 30 minutes not 15.
2) Planning meeting runs over four hours and team members don't feel everything is properly planned. Team members tend to dread these meetings.
3) Number of communication paths is too many for people to manage.
At the start of the project the manager was concerned that team members would miss out on key information if he split the teams.
What have I missed?
Blog: http://www.notesfro matooluser. com/
Recent Entries: Agile/Scrum Smells: http://www.notesfro matooluser. com/2008/ 06/agilescrum- smells.html
Agile Games for Making Retrospectives Interesting: http://www.notesfro matooluser. com/2008/ 10/agile- games-for- making-retrospec tives-interestin g.html
... To take this idea even further, in a *performing* team, members hold each other accountable to do greater things than they ve done before. To me it seemsMessage 1 of 6 , Dec 2 11:12 AMView Source--- In email@example.com, "Mark Levison" <mark@...> wrote:
> 3) Number of communication paths is too many for people to manage.To take this idea even further, in a *performing* team, members hold
each other accountable to do greater things than they've done before.
To me it seems less probable a team that's too big will become
self managing to the same extent. Probably it will break itself
into smaller cliques anyway, which may be fine.