Self forming teams at scale
blogs.msdn.com
blogs.msdn.com
I like the "selling" idea, and even though it already feels a little too over-engineered the way the MS guy is pitching it, I might add one more wrinkle: nobody stays on the same feature team more than X months. Becoming an expert in a particular area is sorely needed in many tech organizations, but after 1, 2, or 3 years, it's probably time to move on to something else.
"We’ve done it 3 times now over the past ~7 years and have been happy with the results every time"
This comment confirmed it for me. I'm interested in companies who are using this model in a context where software is released continuously or at least multiple times per year?
Source: I'm the guy closest to the camera in the picture. Oh, and we're hiring if anyone is interested.
The fact that it takes them 3-4 days to decide the next round of teams seems very long, in spite the post's insistence that it's short.
I'm interested in environments where teams chose a much shorter cycles. I think shorter cycles would present a different set of challenges, like reducing ramp-up times and cycle decision times. It may also be easier, like reducing the risk of a single cycle decision.
I have heard reports from a company with ~50 engineers who had 2 week cycle times, which was basically their sprint time though releases would have much more frequently. They had the advantage of a mostly homogeneous language and development environment. There kept in up for more than two years, at which point the company pivoted, no longer had a homogeneous dev environment and were doing more greenfield and less support/optimization/incremental-improvement. All reports were great. People were always surprised how the team would even out the teams when put in a single room, where the teams and choices were clear to everyone.
It can take time to find and fix subtle bugs. Adding new features introduces new subtle bugs.
Even as a developer, for me to grow happy with a tool often means that Apple will crush my joy by altering thatntool in a way that makes no sense to me.
Today's "UX" is particularly tragic. I find so many user interfaces that make no sense. Perhaps thats because there isnt enough time to solicit feedback from end users.
tl;dr Self selected Instant runoff voting of future destiny instead of forcing decisions on workers turns out pretty well.