RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: SCRUM in a Matrixed Environment
- Hi,IMHO matrix organizations is not such a good idea for software development. I hope that allscrum masters in matrix organization can keep pointing that out (to management). :)If you need some more concrete facts. Capers Jones in his Software Assesments, Benchmarksand Best Practices states:"The matrix structure tends to raise the management head count for larger projects. Because softwareproductivity declines as the management count goes up, this form of organization can be hazardousfor software. (SPR lacks data on effectiveness of the matrix organization for hardware or other kind ofprojects besides software. I have no opinion on the effectiveness of the matrix organization outsidethe software domain)"And this is based on a study on quite much projects. Might help in convincing.Basps. We use scrum in a matrixed organization and it does work... though not sure what the benefits ofthe matrix organization is :)From Ron's comment, I am inclined to infer that SCRUM doesn't work
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of ext dhruba_sen
Sent: 25 April, 2006 20:17
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: SCRUM in a Matrixed Environment
in a matrixed environment.
Assigning a resource to multiple projects ? Happens all the time -
particularly in high-tech industry where we are constrained by
abundant resource availability. Let us not imagine a perfect world
where we get whatever and whenever we need. To effectively practice
SCRUM - we will need to convince the executive management to change
the company management strucure of matrixed management !! If not the
IS division, the SCRUM MASTERS will be asked to look for their
utopian world elsehwere.
Joe - setting priorites is a different issue from managing the daily
SCRUM meetings. It may be an output from the meetings - we identify
resource contention and thereofre the need to prioritize or new hire
and therefore ...etc etc.
Dhruba P Sen, PMP, CSDP, CSQA
Sr. Program Manager
--- In email@example.com, "Joseph Little"
> Hi all,
> Taking Ron's comments below a bit further, my experience (or maybe
> opinion) is that the real issue often is just setting priorities
> amongst projects. Several projects have to go first, and several
> have to wait.
> And recognizing his "rule" that putting one person half-time of 2
> projects gives you 0.8 of an FTE (if on a single project).
> Managers/leaders waste the company's assets is they lack the
> political will to set such priorities. Hey, it is tough to
> not yet".
> I'm ok not to optimize the individuals per se. But in this kind
> case, I see it typically leading to /less/ Bus Value per X amount
> time for the company (with gross inputs roughly constant).
> [Note: There are several reasons for spreading people -- I do not
> mean to say this is not a problem.]
> Does this apply?
> Regards, Joe
> Kitty Hawk Consulting
> Charlotte, NC
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Ron Jeffries
> <ronjeffries@> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 24, 2006, at 12:57:02 PM, dhruba_sen wrote:
> > > How does the SCRUM daily meetings work in a matrixed
> > > developers are assigned to multiple projects? For example, if
> > > developer is assigned to 5 projects, how feasible is it to
> > > scrum meetings for 5 projects?
> > How feasible is it to assign people to five projects? It's
> > well-known that net productivity declines after two (and even at
> > two, you only get about .4 productivity on each).
> > It's hard to imagine someone on five projects being committed to
> > of them. Sound like chickens to me.
> > Ron Jeffries
> > www.XProgramming.com
> > If there's only one answer, then this must not be a very
> interesting topic.