Someone in my network sent me the following question the other day:
One question that's been surprisingly hard to answer is "Where did the concept of a long-lived team (vs a team that adjourns after a project is complete) first surface?"
And it started me thinking about the notion.
Today, we talk a lot about moving from a Project focus to a Product focus, that is from:
Teams are formed and then disbanded or reorganized around the dimensions of a specific project. When the project is done, the team is done.
To
Teams are formed around a product area (or function) or around a functions area (infrastructure, architecture, etc.). The teams in this case are longer-lived in that there are no artificial closures based on their work.
Clearly, the latter strategy aligns better with the notion of a self-directed, cross-functional, high-performance agile team. But to the questioner’s point, when did that surface as an intentional focus, or even a directive or thing, in the agile community?
Backtracking
Going back in time in my memory…
My first thought was to the Agile Manifesto. Was there anything specifically stated in it around the notion? I believe the answer is no. There is mention of the notion of a team, but not any specifics around the duration.
Then I went to Extreme Programming. There are mentions of practices like—whole team view, sitting together, energized work, pair-programming, and collective ownership. There is a reference to “cycles”, for example, a weekly cycle and a quarterly cycle for release, which does imply some sustainability of the team. But again, nothing directly called out.
Well, what about Scrum? Again, while early Scrum did speak about a cross-functional team and recommend the numbers or size of the team, I don’t think there was any reference to duration, short-lived versus longer-lived.
Good Question
As I thought back and reviewed my experience, the answer that emerged was that I could recall no directives from any of my agile reading or experience that formally declared longer-lived teams as a goal. So, what I thought was a simple question turned out to be more nuanced than I initially perceived.
Now I do think the long-lived recommendation is implied. And, in my experience, the notion of project-based teams was something that I’ve personally experienced as being counter to healthy agile teams, teaming, and results. That’s probably why the notion has endured as one of the emergent principles of agile.
And I support longer-lived teams, amongst other aspects, in this post.
Too Long-Lived?
Is that even a notion or a possible variant of this question? I think so.
You see it in Doc Norton’s view in my Stop Norming and Performing blog post. You also see the notion amplified in Heidi Helfand’s Dynamic Reteaming book.
In both instances, they’re making the case that a little turbulence (storming, team flux, shifting) can be a good thing in creating higher performance and resiliency at a team level. And I absolutely have seen that myself.
So, being too long-lived is also a thing and a potential anti-pattern.
Wrapping Up
I love it when folks challenge me with questions that I might initially trivialize, but upon examination, they create an interesting journey. This was one of those questions and I appreciate it.
I’d love to hear from anyone who has a different experience around the question.
Stay agile my friends,
Bob.