Re: [scrumdevelopment] Re: People Practices: Reporting Relationships
- .... so Ken may and probably will chime in on this. You may want to look at the following post on "self selection" by team members -- and use the search function of the site to find out more....
Hope this helps and please let me know if you have any questions if Ken (or others) do not chime in!
- mike vizdos
www.michaelvizdos.comOn 8/18/07, Peter Alfvin < palfvin@...> wrote:
--- In email@example.com, "Dan LeFebvre"
> We are rolling out Scrum and are struggling with many of these
> issues. We have a role called "Pod Lead" which is meant to be a
> mentor to a small group of developers. Many saw the role as a "mini-
> manager" and assigned tasks to individuals and were told that
> they "are responsible for team quantity and quality".
> We also have development directors that have been the "Product
> Delivery Leads" which means they were responsible for content, date,
> budget, and quality.
> So here is where we are now:
> We will reinforce the mentoring aspect of the Pod Lead and coaching
> them away from their "mini-manager" behavior.
> Most development managers have been assigned as ScrumMasters with
> specific discussion about the two roles. As ScrumMaster you
> facilitate a cross-functional team to deliver the quality software
> as prioritized by the Product Owner, protect them from interference,
> and remove impediments. As Dev Manager, you provide equipment and
> space, help individuals improve their skills, set expectations of
> behavior, performance reviews, and compensation planning.
> The Dev Directors are now ScrumMasters of the integrated team. They
> are accountable for quality practices, Scrum practices of the teams
> in their organizations.
> The product managers are now the Product Owners accountable for
> content, date and budget, with a heirarchy that matches our product
> suite structure.
> QA managers are mostly team members that provide testing/QA
> expertise to the team and people/line management for the testers in
> the organization.
> Most people now have 2 roles, their Scrum role and their
> organizational role, and people have to be conscious of the role
> they are playing in different situations. For example, the QA
> manager during a Sprint Planning meeting is a peer providing skills
> and expertise to the team on story test development and QA strategy.
> He or she is not assigning work in this meeting. As a manager, he or
> she would have one-on-one meetings with the testers to give feedback
> on skills, work on career plans and encourage collaborative team
> behavior when needed.
> Dan LeFebvre
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "vandecutt"
> <gotchamail@> wrote:
> > Was just about to post this question myself. To add fire to this
> > question, my organization also has been using a "Team Lead"
> > So, before we started our move to Scrum, imagine a "line manager"
> > about 8 or 9 developers and the team somewhat sub-divided with two
> > "TEam Lead" positions. Essentially, the "team lead" is supposed to
> > a senior level, very experienced developer who could also
> > people. He or she took care of most of the daily management and
> > leadership activities of his or her subteam. The "line manager" was
> > still very closely involved but less so. The "line manager" is also
> > still responsible for performance appraisals, compensation
> > and so forth.
> > I just wonder whether the "line manager" should be considered a
> pig or
> > a chicken and regardless of which, how his role and responsibility
> > should change. Meanwhile, I also question whether we still need a
> > formal "team lead" position anymore.
> > thoughts?
Thanks you both for your posts. I've been waiting to see if there
were any other response before chiming in again.
It sounds as if you're trying to do what we've tried to do, namely add
on the Scrum roles in the context of a traditional technical
But it seems to me that Ken is calling for something more radical. If
you read "How People are Managed" and "Functional Expertise" on pages
76-81 of his new book, it's quite explicit about the role of the
Product Owner, the Scrum Master and the team in determining team
composition. And in addition to repeatedly saying that the Scrum
teams are "self-managing" he states that any alignment of functional
expertise exists only in terms of ad hoc, emergent groups.
Ken, can you shed any light on this? Simply put, in your model, who
do team members "report to" in the HR sense and what is the nature of
that relationship? Or is that aspect of organizational design left as
an exercise for the reader? :-)