What if powerful languages and idioms only work for small teams? (via Small teams and big jobs) is interesting. We are running a really large Agile project here at GU; what, 60 odd people? Mention any of the road bumps you hit, and people tell you your team's too large.
That's no good. The team, and the project, are the size they need to be. Splitting them arbitrarily might be possible, but it would carry huge costs of its own. The challenge is to make agile work with a big team. And on the whole, I think we are.
Interestingly, despite the fact that we've made agile methodologies scale up, some people here are still nervous about whether agile languages can do the same. Plus ca change...
Posted to Agile by Simon Brunning at November 26, 2007 09:49 AM"The challenge is to make agile work with a big team. And on the whole, I think we are."
..how so?
Posted by: mark mathews on November 26, 2007 11:29 AMHow so? That's a *big* topic, Mark. ;-)
And do you mean how is that the challenge, or how are we meeting it?
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 11:31 AMHave you read Jutta Eckstein's book, Agile Software Development in the Large? It might be a useful to consider what she's experienced and apply it on your team.
Posted by: Pat on November 26, 2007 11:41 AMSome of the heavier Agile Methods (such as FDD) are meant to deal with precisely this problem. Have you looked into them?
Regards,
Lance
Posted by: Lance Walton on November 26, 2007 11:42 AMEckstein's book and FUD, errr, FDD sound interesting. I'll take a look, ta.
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 12:08 PM>or how are we meeting it?
That bit :-)
...wondering what practical things you have come up with compared to the theory of FDD etc, and why your solutions fit your team...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_Driven_Development
http://www.featuredrivendevelopment.com/
Posted by: mark mathews on November 26, 2007 12:39 PMSimon,
I would like to hear a justification as to why the team is the size it needs to be. What would be better or worse if it were bigger or smaller. Not suggesting that you guys are not doing terrific, just pointing out that saying something is "what it needs to be" sounds under-analysed.
Posted by: Jeff Santini on November 26, 2007 01:56 PMFDD looks very big 'M' to me, Mark. I'm not sure what we do is easily compared - it's certainly much more lightweight.
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 01:57 PMHey, Jeff!
What I mean is that there is a certain amount of functionality to be delivered, and a deadline. We are running close to the schedule, so we must have roughly the right level of resource, yes?
If the team were smaller, we'd not be able to keep do the work.
Youb see - this is why I'm just a code monkey, and happy to stay that way. ;-)
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 02:01 PMRunning close to schedule with a team that size is certainly something to feel good about, but I would like to point out the possibility(without any specific knowledge that it is so) that there could be a better way to organise your resources such that you could achieve more with fewer people.
If that were true, then you would be wasting resources by having more people working on the project than necessary, the dev area there might be a few degrees cooler in summer as well :)
Posted by: Jeff Santini on November 26, 2007 02:09 PMI've often found the easiest way to double your velocity is to halve the team size (as long as you get to choose which half to keep)
Posted by: anon on November 26, 2007 05:48 PMYeah - but that would be *me* out for a start. ;-)
Posted by: Simon on November 26, 2007 05:52 PMThanks dude. It was special reading
Posted by: kerrrtivolsafdf on March 23, 2011 01:54 AMThanks dude. It has been cool hearing
Posted by: kerrrtivolsafdf on March 25, 2011 08:29 PM