When we look at the various Benin Phone Numbers List on the ideal size of a team in summary, it generally revolves around the number 7 (whatever the field). Or say between 5 and 10 people. It is at this size level that we optimize the number of interactions between the individuals of the team and between the team and its ecosystem. At less than 3, we are underutilizing the potential of a collective force, and we have probably operated an organizational breakdown of too fine a granularity, which makes coordination between the teams too complex. At more than 10 or 12, the potential number of interactions between the different members of the

team becomes too important for a human being to apprehend and the problems of coordination too numerous. The phenomena of “free rider” become possible (the insufficient level of production of a member of the team – of their own doing or not – can go unnoticed). A theory well known to adepts of agile developments The ideal configuration of an agile team: a full-time Product Owner (the one who defines what to develop, prioritizes the work, checks that what is produced meets his vision) four to six developers, including at least one technical leader capable of training the most junior a full-time tester to push the

The Magic Number: 7

product to its limits and make sure everything is working as it should a Scrum Master who can be full-time or part-time depending on the maturity of the team and the Product Owner, and who ensures the smooth running of agile rituals and removes the problems that can “seize” the functioning of the team ad hoc recourse to expertise external to the team (architect, designer, etc.) So how do you do when you’re fat? We divide our heritage of IT products (but this goes for other types of production) so that each “product” is managed by a team of 5 to 10 people. We are not trying to produce faster or faster than reasonable


(according to the famous adage, it takes a pregnant woman nine months to have a baby, nine pregnant women will not have a baby in a month). And we standardize the interfaces and inter-team expectations so as to limit the coordination problems they generate. Moreover, as for individuals, wanting to coordinate more than 7 teams among themselves often becomes unreasonable. The optimal size of an organization is therefore perhaps a power of 7!define several strategic axes depending on the risk assessment that has been made but also on the knowledge you may have of your suppliers and the materials that go into the

A Theory Well Known To Adepts Of Agile Developments

composition of your products. The products with the highest risk score must therefore be subject to the most stringent security and compliance conditions. Addressing them as a priority will allow the action plan to be refined throughout the compliance process for products with lower risk. This action plan established to respond to the different aspects of risk management must be clear, feasible and effective. It must also include several factors allowing protection and prevention in the event of a proven risk. The tools available

are varied and we can find there: Legal protection through contractual clauses, financial protection, ie. a budget planned for bringing the catalog into conformity, organizational protection, through the creation or reassignment of a team to ensure the execution of the compliance process, technical protection, by ensuring the compliance of the supply chain through tests. Prioritization helps in decision-making The advantage of prioritizing the risks and the actions to be taken is to establish a means of achieving the set objectives while minimizing the time and financial investments, thus facilitating decision-making for a company. We have


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.