Skip to main content

Before Scaling Up - consider...

Before one scales up their functioning teams (I'm assuming one would not want to scale up non-functioning teams - yet I've seen that done) one should look for alternatives to the scaling problem.
"Scaling Agile methods is the last thing you should do" —@martinfowler, 2003

This scaling problem has been studied:

"In 1957, British naval historian and management satirist Northcote Parkinson [known for Parkinson's law: “work expands to fill the time available for its completion”] painted a cynical picture of a typical committee: It starts with four or five members, quickly grows to nine or ten, and, once it balloons to 20 and beyond, meetings become an utter waste of time – and all the important work is done before and after meetings by four or five most influential members."

Scaling up Excellence

Why Big Teams Suck by Robert Sutton is a Stanford Professor and co-author (with Huggy Rao) of Scaling Up Excellence: Getting to More without Settling for Less.

Studied in Academia

"After devoting nearly 50 years to studying team performance, the late Harvard researcher J. Richard Hackman concluded that four to six members is the team best size for most tasks, that no work team should have more than 10 members, and that performance problems and interpersonal friction increase 'exponentially as team size increases'.”

Studied in the Military

"Some organizations learn about the drawbacks of oversized groups the hard way. Retired Marine Captain and former U.S. Senator James H. Webb explained why the “fire team” – the basic combat fighting unit – shrunk from 12 to 4 during War II. Webb wrote in the Marine Corp Gazette that this “12 man mob” was “immensely difficult” for Marine squad leaders to control under the stress and confusion of battle. Coordination problems were rampant and close relationships – where soldiers fight for their buddies – were tougher to maintain in 12-man teams."

Studied in Health Care

"A Harvard Business School study by Melissa Valentine and Amy Edmondson of a large hospital’s emergency department [...] The crowd of 30 or so doctors and nurses who staffed the department at any given time were divided into multiple six person “pods,” each led by a senior doctor or “attending physician.” After the change, information about patients flowed more quickly and accurately and personal relationships improved markedly. Smaller teams reduced confusion and discomfort about who to ask for help and updates."

I think the general lesson learned is to not scale up, because the systems and structures that created and support the current organization will not bare the stress of scaling up.

Some alternatives to Scaling Agile:

Scaling Agile – the Easy Way by Arlo Belshee

Try to re-structure the organization in a way that doesn't require efficiency of scale to achieve the goal. For example WL Gore's organizational pattern a team based flat lattice.

Or Semco, "a Brazilian conglomerate that specializes in complex technologies and services. Semco is a self-managed company. Workers at Semco choose what they do as well as where and when they do it. They even choose their own salaries. Subordinates review their supervisors and elect corporate leadership. They also initiate moves into new businesses and out of old ones. The company is run like a democracy." -- Podular organization: a business within the business written by Dave Gray.

Try a fundamentally radical idea like Holacracy.  "Holacracy is a real-world-tested social technology for agile and purposeful organization. It radically changes how an organization is structured, how decisions are made, and how power is distributed."

Take a lesson from the US Government's FBI Case Management system.

Before you consider the leading market agile/scrum scaling tool-sets like SAFe, DAD etc. try this alternative approach:  Open Agile Adoptions by Dan Mezick author of The Culture Game.

“Scaling is actually a problem of less,” says Sutton in The Do’s and Don’ts of Rapid Scaling for Startups. “There are lots of things that used to work that don’t work anymore, so you have to get rid of them. There are probably a bunch of things you’ve always done that slowed you down without you realizing it.”
See Also:
The Founder Effect
Comparing Scaling Agile Frameworks - CIO 
The Agile Late Majority has different needs
The Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) – A Review by Agile Scout
SAFe - but not good enough  by Ron Jeffries
Scaling Scrum: SAFe, DAD, or LeSS? by Peter Stevens
Scaling Agile Development LeSS - PDF by Larman & Vodde
IBM's Disciplined Agile Delivery DAD by Scott Ambler
Scaled Agile Framework SAFE by Dean Leffingwell
A Scaled Agile Framework® (SAFe™) Case Study by Brad Swanson
Large Scale Scrum (LeSS) @ J.P. Morgan by Craig Larman and Matt Winn
Case Study of a Difficult Federal Government Scrum Project: FBI Sentinel by M. James
Kanban and its flight levels by Klaus Leopold
Agility Adoption Rather Than Agile At Scale by Oana Juncu
The Folly of Scaling Agile by Rachel Davies
Speaking on SAFe: Thoughts from my Leading Scaled Agile Framework course  by Andrew Clear
Enterprise Agile: Are you Ready by Scott Ambler - DAD slides from Agile2014
LeSS vs SAFe case study at Nokia by Gosei (Ari Tikka & Ran Nyman)
Moving Past the Scaling Myth by Michael Feathers
LeSS is More - SolutionsIQ Agile Amped talk at Agile2015 by Bas Vodde & Craig Larmann
Descaling Organizations with LeSS  by Viktor Grgic
Large Agile Projects by Martin Fowler
SAFe: the infantilism of management by Dave Snowden
Post a Comment

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.

In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.

Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    To Do
    Work In P…

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

What belongs on the Task Board?

I wonder about these questions a lot - what types of task belong on the task board?  Does every task have to belong to a Story?  Are some tasks just too small?  Are some tasks too obvious?  Obviously some task are too larger, but when should it be decomposed?  How will we know a task is too large?

I answer these questions with a question.  What about a task board motivates us to get work done?  The answer is: T.A.S.K.S. to DONE!

Inherent in the acronym TASKS is the point of all tasks, to get to done.  That is the measure of if the task is the right size.  Does it motivate us to get the work done?  (see notes on Dan Pink's book: Drive - The surprising Truth about what motivates us) If we are forgetting to do some class of task then putting it on the board will help us remember.  If we think some small task is being done by someone else, then putting it on the board will validate that someone else is actually doing it.  If a task is obvious, then putting it on the board will take vi…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.

I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

David's notes on "Drive"

- "The Surprising Truth about what Motivates Us" by Dan Pink.

Amazon book order
What I notice first and really like is the subtle implication in the shadow of the "i" in Drive is a person taking one step in a running motion.  This brings to mind the old saying - "there is no I in TEAM".  There is however a ME in TEAM, and there is an I in DRIVE.  And when one talks about motivating a team or an individual - it all starts with - what's in it for me.


Pink starts with an early experiment with monkeys on problem solving.  Seems the monkeys were much better problem solver's than the scientist thought they should be.  This 1949 experiment is explained as the early understanding of motivation.  At the time there were two main drivers of motivation:  biological & external influences.  Harry F. Harlow defines the third drive in a novel theory:  "The performance of the task provided intrinsic reward" (p 3).  This is Dan Pink's M…