Component Teams (CT) are specialized teams organized around the architecture of the product under development. Examples of such teams are UI / User experience teams, Database design and modeling teams, team of Architects, Security team, etc.
A typical component based scrum team is more or less similar to a feature team i.e. each CT will have 3 to 4 developers, 2 to 3 testers, a Product Owner & Scrum Master with Documentation and Architect representation as needed.
The top node of the diagram “Theme/Epic”depicts customers value add features (Features that customer value). Think of this as some high level requirement that marketing will use in their presentation to advertise a product. This value add feature might not be small enough to finish in one sprint and gets decomposed in to multiple smaller features i.e. Feature 1, Feature 2, Feature 3, and Feature 4. What this essentially means is, once Feature 1 through 4 are done in its entierty, the top level Theme/Epic is “Done”.
The stories for component based teams are fed by these decomposed features Feature 1, Feature 2, Feature 3, and Feature 4. As the diagram shows, Feature 1 is dependent on Component Teams C1, C2 and C3. Similarly, Feature 2 is dependent on component team C1 and C2, Feature 2 is dependendent on CT C1 and C3 and so on. Component teams in general provide functionality and serve multiple Features. Component teams generally don’t generate products that get shipped to the customer. But they develop functionality that is consumed by feature teams and indirectly helps add value to the features being delivered to customers.
If organizations are structured in a way that specialized teams are spread globally then forming component based teams might make sense. Component based teams are great to keep site affinity, work across different timezones and also to keeping team culture intact. But it also comes at an expense of management overhead.
Few challenges with component teams based on my experience
- There is overhead of integrating component team’s delivery with the top level features. In the example above, when C1, C2 and C3 finishes the deliveries for Feature 1 they have to be integrated together in Feature 1.
- To ensure all scrums are aligned well to deliver end-to-end customer functionality, it will take lot of upfront planning as well as tracking during the entire sprint.
- In my experience, with component based teams it’s very difficult to deliver thin slice of end-to-end functionality at end of each iteration because feature team needs time to harden (stabilize code base + write integration tests) their code with component team code delivery.
- Since component team serves multiple features teams, negotiation needs to happen between Feature Team and Component teams to avoid starvation. For Ex. In the diagram above Component Team C1 gets requirements from Feature 1, Feature 2, and Feature 3. In the upcoming iteration let’s say C1 can only serve Feature 1. In this case Feature 2 and Feature 3 teams will have to wait until next iteration before their needed functionality is delivered and will be starved.
Thus, for component teams to succeed open communication channel should be established throughout the organization.
Please share your experiences.
pascal
I've just read a very insightful article on feature teams by Craig Larman and Bas Vodde that you might find interesting too: https://bit.ly/aoAMh. I hope you'll enjoy it as much as I did.
Michael James
Based on what I've seen, I'd rarely advise component teams. I'd want to take a hard look at the assumptions preventing the adoption of feature teams.
–mj
admin
Thanks for your feedback Michael –
I agree. Based on my experience, I would advice to stay away from Component teams too. However, in enterprise environments with global teams it becomes challenging to form entirely feature based teams.
Thanks,
-Hiren