4 ms·
On the other hand, the Scrum Guide[1] recommends that teams have 3-9 people in them, and that more leads to poor coordination. Seems like an inverse "Goldilocks
by DougBTX 7y ago
On the other hand, the Scrum Guide[1] recommends that teams have 3-9 people in them, and that more leads to poor coordination. Seems like an inverse "Goldilocks problem", Scrum standups are best when there are more than 10 people and less than 10 people in the team.
[1] https://www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2017/2017-Scrum-Guide-US.pdf https://www.scrumguides.org/docs/scrumguide/v2017/2017-Scrum... - page 7
- solidasparagus 7y agoI am absolutely not a believer in anyone who talks about agile techniques as having 'Rules'. That is a trademark of agile gone wrong to me. Small teams are better, but not always possible. Agile is about having team mechanics that make your specific team more productive and changing them as your team changes.
- EdwardDiego 7y agoThat aligns with my experiences, we aimed for 6, with a max of 8, with a min of 4. I will say, Scrum was really helpful for us, but only because we took "iterate on your process" seriously, and had a culture where teams could experiment with their process. In the end we outgrew it, but Scrum helped us reach the point where we could do so.