We're doing Scrum on a 10-12 person team (depending on what the DBAs are working on at the moment) and one of the more interesting problems I've been talking about with people is how to scale the process. I have a friend on a 200+ person project and they do Scrum-of-Scrums every day so one person from each "lower level" scrum team goes to another scrum meeting and so on up to the meeting with all the main project heads. This sometimes ends up taking 2 hours out of people's days if they have to go to a bunch of the scrum-of-scrums. What are your feelings on scaling Agile processes up to larger teams? Do you sacrifice somebody to be the "meeting person"? To me communication has always been the most important part of any Agile process, how do you keep that in large teams?
At a high level, it seems like your question is: “how do you scale Scrum?” In my experience, scaling is mostly independent of methodology. There are some Agile practices which can limit scalability, but luckily those practices are not required to get the primary benefits of Agile development. The practices which limit scaling are: relying on collocation and using 3x5 cards to the exclusion of other methods for storing and distributing project information. Other than that, what did the 200+ person do to scale prior to Scrum? Whatever it was, there is no reason that I can see to prevent them from scaling using those methods. Speaking specifically about Scrum, the Scrum-of-Scrums is the method recommended by Ken Schwaber for scaling project information flow.
Another area which is often a problem with scaling in general is the frequent integration required by the short iterations. For that you may consider Multi-Stage Continuous Integration.
Stand Up Meetings
As for the stand-up meetings, those are mandatory in Scrum. I don’t happen to agree with that requirement, but let’s hold that thought for a moment.
First, let’s take a look at the expense side of the Scrum meetings. First, people have to get to it. You have to wait until everybody is there. And then you have to get back to your computer. Scrum discusses how to minimize this time, but practically speaking, there is more overhead than just the ideal 15 minute meeting. If you are at a larger company, somebody has to book the room and let people know where it is. Let’s call the cost of the meeting 20 minutes per person. If you have 12 people in a Scrum, that’s 4 person hours per day. That’s the equivalent of half of a person. Those Scrum meetings had really better be worth it!
If they are worth it, then there is actually no problem and if somebody going to Scrum-of-Scrums has a personal dislike of meetings, even when they provide value, then perhaps somebody else should be doing the Scrum-of-Scrums.
Now let’s take a hard look at the stand-up meeting itself. One of the basic ideas of Agile (and Lean) is continual self improvement. If the value of the meeting exceeds the cost, then there’s no problem with the meetings, especially if they are eliminating other meetings. If the Scrum meeting is the only remaining status meeting, that seems like a good thing. However, continuous improvement means we’re never satisfied. Now that you are down to just the one meeting, you should still ask the question: “is it providing more value than the cost? Is there a better way?”
What is the purpose of the Scrum? To quickly find out if people are getting their assigned work done and if not why not. Isn’t it more efficient to do that via e-mail, IM, an issue tracking system, or other means? Someone might say “but the socialization aspect is worthwhile.” Ok, so why not separate the two? By all means let's have some social activities, but that's not a good reason for having a status meeting.
Or perhaps the Scrum is needed because otherwise folks wouldn’t complete their work, or people wouldn’t speak up when they run into an impediment. In that case the Scrum isn’t a solution at all. For instance, perhaps somebody isn’t completing their work because they don’t like it, but the constant peer pressure of the standup meeting is goading them into completing their work anyway. So then the real problem is lack of job satisfaction or low morale or something along those lines. Until you fix that problem, the standup is just acting as a band-aid for an underlying management problem. If you find that having standup meetings from time to time helps to expose management problems, then by all means have the meeting(s), find the problem(s), but don't have the meetings just for the sake of having them!
One more thought on this topic: the real measure of project status and health is having an increment of shippable value at the end of every iteration. A standup will only expose problems that are on people’s minds, but the forcing function of the increment of shippable value is where you will get the true picture of how things are going. A one month iteration interval is good, but if you can get it down to 2 weeks or even 1 week, that will do far more to expose real problems than a standup will.
Speaking of short iterations, IMHO that’s really the number one thing which makes Agile scale better than traditional development. It is much easier to manage and coordinate large multi-team projects when the scope of everything is constantly focused on one month iterations (sprints). Of course, it may seem more difficult at times, but that is often due to the fact that problems are much more apparent and can’t “hide out” like they do in long iterations.
In summary, experiment and see what works for your particular situation, but always be on the lookout for opportunities for process improvement. Don’t do things by rote, demand that all activities provide real value.
Have a question on Agile or Software Development? Please visit the "ask away" section.