Not Accountable, Not Responsible
Team size can make a big difference in the success of your service or product. What is counterintuitive for most people is that the larger the team size, the lower the likelihood of success for your service or product. Why? Entropy can set in and large teams are inherently bad vehicles for communication. More insipid, however, is that the larger the team, there is a higher likelihood of accountability and responsibility being diffused across the team.
When accountability and responsibility is massively diffused, then the mantra holds: if everyone is charge, then nobody is in charge. In this article, I quantitatively show the inverse relationship between team size and productivity & how team size does impact the effectiveness of communication and accountability & the eventual success of the service or product.
I’ve written about efficient teams before here and here. When I was at Amazon, teams were organized into small, delta teams called “2-pizza teams”: no team should be larger than 2 pizzas can feed. It’s a great approach to team size. In my short career, I’ve learned how true that rule is. Here’s another thing I’ve learned –
- 2 people are smarter than one
- 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 people are smarter than 2
- a team larger than 9 people is just a big dumb gelatinous blob (acronym: BDGB)
Okay, that’s not true at a wholesale level, but it sure feels like it. A small team with highly smart and capable team members can do much more than 10 mediocre team members. The Wisdom of Crowds mentality doesn’t work that well when it comes to efficiency in teams.
A more quantitative explanation is as follows:
One of the root causes of failure in projects is communication — either a lack thereof, miscommunication, or hand-off’s. Large teams are inherently vehicles for bad communication. This is basic combinatorics — for a given project, suppose there are persons A and B. In this scenario there is only 1 communication link. Add person C, now we have 3 communication links, A-B, B-C, C-A. Add person D, then we have 6; Add person E, then we have 10 communication links. Inductively, as team size grows, the raw combinatoric communication link counts grows geometrically, not linearly. To demonstrate this, we use basic statistics of the form n-choose-r, where !, such as n!, is equivalent to n factorial, to arrive at the formula for how many pairs we can choose from n items:
For the number of pairs, we can reduce the above formula to the following:
Visually, as team size grows, the communication links grows non-linearly, but exponentially:
A Rejoinder
Do not let the above dissuade you from large teams; if the product requires a large team, then that is what is needed. Caution, is what I am arguing here. The facts are that the larger the team, the more communication channels there are and the entire process then becomes more error-prone. If the product requires a large team, then expect the above challenge and manage it.
A Conclusion
There is wisdom in Bezos’ notion of the 2-Pizza Team. Small teams — provided you have the right people — work incredibly well. Also, there is wisdom in Toyota’s usage of Obeya or “The Big Room” as a way to mitigate defects caused by large teams. A combining of the two will most likely make for a great team and a successful product.
Articles on Ethnography and Design:
- Feature? What Feature?
- Simplify The Product
- Ask Aza Raskin
- Aza Raskin on Poka-Yoke & The Humane Interface
- Aza Raskin on Quasimodal Design and The ATM
- Aza on Feature-Bloat and Site Clutter
- Aza on Google Search Results Page
- Aza on Cooperation and Team Size
- Design Thinking in Medicine
- On Designing a Watering Can for Little Hands
- Queueing Theory and Visual Management
- An Interview with the Inventor of “Clocky”
- Bad Breath but Good Design
- What is Ethnography
Articles on Leadership:
- Overmanaged and Underled
- Colin Powell on Leadership
- Team or Staff?
- Tipping-Point Leadership
- Abraham Lincoln on Leadership
- How to transform an Organization: Chime-in Before Buy-in
Articles on Queueing Theory:
- Queueing Theory: Part 1
- Queueing Theory: Part 2
- Queueing Theory: Part 3
- Queueing Theory: Part 4
- What is Waste?
- On Time-Traps and Waste
- Call Centers as Queueing Systems
- Travel Time & Waste
- Little’s Law for Product Development
- YouTube’s Queueing Properties
- Psychology of Queueing and Disneyland
- Queueing, Disneyland, and FastPass
- Multi-Tasking Leads to Lower Productivity
- Queueing Theory and Terrorism
- On Queueing Theory and Elevator Mirrors
- Psychology of Queueing, Haunted Houses, and Halloween
- The Variability Tree
- Attitude and the Psychology of Waiting – The Psychology of Queueing
Articles on Operations, lean and six sigma:
- Managing Constraints Under Peak Volumes
- Order Pipeline of Events
- On Game Theory
- Applied Regression Analysis
- 5S
- Click-to-Ship Processes
- Kanban Sizing and “Pull”
- Lean at Krispy Kreme
- Theory of Constraints and Camping
- Lean for Software Development
- Don’t Waste the Customer’s Time
- Featuritis and the Focus on the Customer
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Additional comments powered by BackType
Pete, I’m lovin the new digs. Good redesign.