The Agile Team Composition Framework
Hi community, wanted to ask your feedback for the below mentioned framework. Please note, that it is not conflicting with Scrum but might be used in addition to it.
The Agile Team Composition Guide (ATC)
Purpose of the ATC Guide
ATC is a framework for composing high efficient teams in an agile environment. This Guide contains the definition of ATC. This definition consists of behavior patterns and the rules that bind them together.
Definition of the ATC
ATC: a framework, within which people can address specific behavior patterns in order to get a highly efficient team composition.
• Easy to understand
• Requires preparation
• Extremely flexible
Uses of the ATC
ATC was initially developed to simplify the process of team composition for any employee involved in the recruitment process. However, ATC offers tools to keep Agile Team on performing level avoiding downgrades to Norming or Storming.
The ATC Team
ATC team consists of Drivers, Team Players and Analytics. ATC team roles do not conflict with other frameworks since the focus is on behavior area avoiding functional responsibility, therefore, might be used alongside with roles defined by other frameworks.
The Driver is the one who brings the motion into Agile Team, obvious behavior signs: initiative, creativity and focus on continuous improvement.
The Team Player
The Team Player is the one who maintains an energy level in Agile Team, obvious behavior signs: ready to support initiatives, open-minded and with focus on teamwork.
The Analytic is the one who evaluates the processes within the Agile Team, obvious behavior signs: false passiveness, analytic mindset and focus on facts. Usually, responsible for the critical view on the process.
The ATC Analysis
Behavior patterns (ATC Roles) should be identified and maintained starting from the initial interview and during monthly team inspection process in order to ensure that team has an optimal ratio. It is important to note that team members might change their ATC roles during the project lifecycle.
The ATC & Team Crisis
Agile might be set in motion by union of three: Driver and two Team players. In other words, in case team faces crisis, such structure should be either identified or added into the team.
The ATC Team Ratio
Optimal ATC Team size equals to nine members, nevertheless, it might be applied to any Agile Team despite its size. The only rule that stands behind such approach that Driver, Team player and Analytic have to scale according to the ratio: 1:3:1.
Scrum Team – 11 members including SM and PO = 2 Drivers, 7 Team players and 2 Analytics
Scrum Team – 9 members including SM and PO = 2 Drivers, 5 Team players and 2 Analytics
Scrum Team – 7 members including SM and PO = 2 Drivers, 4 Team players and 1 Analytics / 1 Drivers, 4 Team player and 2 Analytics
Scrum Team – 5 members including SM and PO = 1 Drivers, 3 Team players and 1 Analytics
Nice to have a view on personality within teams. But I do have more questions than answers reading this...
What empiric evidence, psychoanalysis and proven theories, were used to come up with this?
Why would (de)compositon of teams like this lead to efficiency?
And how would NOT adopting this lead to less efficient teams?
Why can't someone be bothe teamplayer and driver? Or even all three at the same time?
Why is Storming and Norming seen as downgrade and not as a regular stage in team development on major changes? How does this framework make sure performing stage is being uphold where not using this framework does not?
A servant leader SM is not a driver, in my view, but a team player. Why is a team full team players not optimal?
Why is the optimal team size 9?
Why is the optimal ratio 1:3:1?
How does this framework cope with 2 strong Drivers, as in, 2 captains one ship (team).
Following the principle of optimal ratio, if people in the team change their role, should the unbalance be restored by kicking people of the team?
And soooooo many more questions.....
I had the same reaction as @Xander. Question after question after question ...
- What is the reason for needing this when a team is self-organized and self-managed?
- What is the actual problem being solved by this framework?
- How does this actually help in forming cross functional teams?
- Why would someone want to use this framework?
- Why is a "monthly team inspection process" necessary if the team is self-managed, self-organizing and high performing?
- If a team is "in crisis" how does ensuring that the optimal ratio help address this? It sounds like you are advocating adding or changing team membership which will most likely put the team further into storming which it appears you are trying to avoid.
I'd keep going but I don't think I would ever finish this post if I did. Your framework needs much more information and supporting evidence in order for me to consider its effectiveness.
Thank you, for triggering such questions. Much appreciated.
What's the added benefit of this framework compared to aaaaaall the other ones?