Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Chapter 8 Scaling Scrum - Coggle Diagram

- - - - When it comes to Scrum teams, it is usually recommended that teams stay under ten members. In the event that an organization wishes to scale their Scrum projects, it is recommended that a bigger team is divided into smaller groups who meet regularly to discuss their progress and report any issues or concerns.
        
        We previously discussed the Scrum of Scrums, which is where multiple teams synchronize their projects. Each Scrum team would select a team representative who join the Scrum meetings and update on the team's progress, challenges they may be facing, breakthroughs they may have had, as well as coordinate any future activities with other teams.
        
        When it comes to deciding how often a Scrum of Scrums should meet, it is the size of the project, level of interdependency, complexity, and recommendations from upper management, which should be taken into consideration.
        
        When larger projects are deployed, a chief of Scrums will need to hire, and this person is responsible for facilitating all the sessions between the Scrum of Scrums.
- - - - A Scrum team consists of 16 members, given the size and the scope of the project to be completed. The budgetary restrictions do not allow for individual Scrum teams, say, two teams of eight, or even three teams of six. So, there is one Scrum Master and one Product Owner looking after all 16 members.
        
        In order to make the division of labor much easier, the Scrum Master has divided the 16 members into four subgroups of four. Each subgroup is intended to cover a specific amount of work during each sprint.
        
        Since the Scrum team has a Daily Standup Meeting, the Scrum Master has to make a choice: does the Daily Standup Meeting include all 16 members of the team, or could the meeting include less members?
        
        There is one problem with each approach.
        
        In this first approach, having all 16 members may drag out the meeting far longer than necessary. Each member may have something to say and that, in itself, may lead to some disorganization in the meeting. So, the meeting could ultimately become counterproductive.
        
        The second approach, working with fewer individuals poses a problem since it would be difficult to choose who is in the meeting and who isn’t. One workaround could be to designate a “group lead” and have this person attend the daily meetings. That would reduce the number of participants from 16 to 4. But that poses another issue: Scrum does not advocate “leaders” or folks “in charge” within each group. Bear in mind that Scrum has a flat structure meaning that everyone has equal participation.
        
        1 more item...