DevOps - ScioDev

Traditional vs. Agile Software Development Method: Which One is Right for Your Project?

Agile Methodology, Nearshore, Outsourced Engineering Team

Traditional vs. Agile Software Development: Which One is Right for Your U.S. Project?

As a CTO or VP of Engineering in the U.S., you’re constantly balancing speed, quality, compliance, and team alignment. One decision that has a direct impact on all of these outcomes is your software development methodology.

In this post, we’ll compare the two dominant approaches, Traditional (Waterfall) and Agile software development, to help you decide which one best suits your project, your team, and your company culture. Whether you’re in a regulated industry, scaling a startup in Dallas or Austin, or exploring nearshore collaboration with Latin America, this guide is designed for you.

What Is Traditional Software Development?

Often referred to as the Waterfall model, traditional development follows a linear, step-by-step process:

Requirements gathering
System design
Development
Testing
Deployment
Maintenance

Each stage is completed before the next one begins. For U.S. companies operating in regulated sectors like healthcare or banking, this predictability and documentation-heavy process is often preferred due to compliance requirements.

In practice, traditional development tends to be rigid and formal. Everything is scoped out before coding begins, and changes introduced mid-project can disrupt the entire flow. However, this method can be highly effective for projects with clear, unchanging requirements. When all stakeholders are aligned from the beginning and outcomes are well-defined, traditional development provides clarity and control.

Pros:

Clear milestones and deadlines
Thorough documentation
Easier stakeholder approval

Cons:

Less room for flexibility
Late discovery of issues
Costly to adapt once the project is underway

What Is Agile Software Development?

Agile development is iterative, collaborative, and adaptive. Instead of a rigid sequence, Agile breaks work into smaller units (sprints), delivering incremental value every few weeks.

Key Agile Practices Include:

Daily standups
Sprint planning and retrospectives
Cross-functional teams
Continuous delivery and feedback

Agile is built on the idea that change is inevitable—and that it’s better to embrace it than resist it. The framework enables teams to respond quickly to shifts in requirements or market needs. For fast-growing startups or digital transformation projects in U.S. cities like Austin, this adaptability is a game-changer.

The Agile approach also encourages close collaboration between business stakeholders and developers, which leads to a more refined and relevant end product. Feedback loops are built into every sprint, allowing for constant learning and improvement.

Pros:

Flexibility to adjust scope
Early and continuous delivery
Increased customer collaboration

Cons:

Requires high team engagement
Can lack upfront clarity
Scope creep, if not managed well

Traditional vs. Agile: A Quick Comparison

Phase	Traditional	Agile
Requirements	Defined upfront	Defined per sprint
Design	Complete before dev	Evolving and lightweight
Development	Linear	Iterative (1–4 weeks)
Testing	After build	Continuous
Deployment	One-time	Frequent
Change	Costly	Welcomed

Choosing the Right Fit for Your Project

The decision between traditional and Agile is not black and white. In fact, many teams adopt hybrid models—combining upfront planning with Agile delivery cycles—to get the best of both worlds.

Choose Traditional If:

You operate in a heavily regulated U.S. industry.
Your project scope is unlikely to change.
You need formal approval checkpoints.

Choose Agile If:

You need to move quickly in competitive markets like Austin or Dallas.
Your product vision may evolve based on feedback.
You want a collaborative, iterative approach.

It’s also worth considering the experience and culture of your team. If your developers and product managers are used to Agile rituals and empowered decision-making, trying to implement a rigid waterfall plan may backfire. On the other hand, if your organization thrives on predictability and tight controls, traditional methods may still serve you well.

What If You’re Working with a Nearshore Team?

For many U.S. tech leaders, nearshoring to Latin America is an attractive alternative to offshore models. It enables Agile collaboration in real-time, thanks to overlapping time zones, cultural alignment, and strong communication skills.

A nearshore team in Mexico, for instance, can:
Join your daily standups and sprint reviews
Adapt quickly to changes in scope
Share Agile values and methodologies

This makes Agile not only feasible but often ideal when working with a culturally aligned nearshore partner.

At Scio, we’ve seen U.S. clients make the switch to nearshore Agile teams not just for convenience, but for quality. The ability to iterate quickly, validate early, and build strong working relationships—without late-night calls or endless documentation—has become a significant differentiator.

Explore more: What Software Development Managers Really Worry About When Outsourcing to LATAM

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between Agile and Traditional development?

Agile is iterative and adaptive, while Traditional is sequential and rigid. Agile allows for faster feedback and adjustment, Traditional focuses on predictability and documentation.

Which methodology is better for regulated industries in the U.S.?

Traditional development is often favored in healthcare, finance, and government due to its structured documentation and fixed approval checkpoints.

Can Agile and Traditional be combined?

Yes. Many teams use a hybrid approach—planning the high-level scope upfront, but executing delivery in Agile sprints.

Final Thoughts

Choosing between Traditional and Agile isn’t about picking a “better” method—it’s about choosing what’s right for your project, team, and market. For many U.S. companies—especially those in high-growth regions like Texas—Agile is becoming the go-to strategy. But there are still valid cases for Traditional methods, especially in legacy-heavy or compliance-driven environments.

At the end of the day, the best development methodology is the one that helps your team deliver high-quality software, on time and within budget, while remaining aligned with your business objectives.

Need help deciding?

At Scio, we provide culturally aligned, high-performing nearshore Agile teams that are easy to work with. Our developers work in your time zone, understand your product vision, and deliver consistently—so you can focus on scaling your business.

What Do You Need? A Software Development Team? Or an Engineering Team?

Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Outsourced Engineering Team, Product Development, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing

Of course, the first question for anyone looking at this is – what is the difference? Let’s start by saying that we’re not speaking specifically about “product engineering” – although it plays a part in this discussion. We’re actually looking at software development teams broadly, how they work and what they can (and can’t) do for your development efforts.

Today’s IT environments can be complicated beasts – with unique mixes of internal and remote API’s, web services, service-based components, virtualized infrastructure, and various open source, proprietary and custom applications. Orchestrating this architecture to provide the internal and external business services for an organization is an increasingly critical operational concern. Depending on the size and complexity of the environment, it is likely to be managed by one or more skilled engineers who are focused on the security, standardization, automation, scalability, availability and reliability of IT systems.

Traditionally, software development teams have been separated from this complexity to some degree by internal standards for application architecture and operation developed by IT. But, as the maturity of IT environments has progressed and agile has become the standard of the tech industry, software development teams are gradually being integrated into combined engineering and engineering teams under DevOps implementations. At this point, there are many different levels of integration between IT engineering and software development teams and if you are considering outsourcing a project – knowing what you are asking for is an important part of your research and decision process.

So, let’s set up a scenario: You are about to embark on a custom software development project. For the sake of this discussion, let’s assume the application to be developed is strategic and tied to your business model. With so many applications and systems available on the market, if it wasn’t – you would probably just adapt an off-the-shelf application for your purpose. You have a charter and description of the business problems your custom application needs to address, a general budget and executive support. The decision has been made to outsource this project rather than do it in-house.

With that in mind, let’s insert some different conditions that could make a significant difference in your needs for an outsourced team:

New, but fully-backed venture with basic organizational structure but with no IT engineering beyond office systems automation and help desk.
Existing IT team with legacy experience but little experience with modern infrastructure or IT operation patterns. No dedicated development team or significant custom applications.
Traditional operations, IT and software development but siloed – not integrated other than by operational standards.
An enterprise-level organization with a fully-integrated IT operations and development team in a DevOps style implementation with a significant portfolio of custom applications that are under continuous development and/or maintenance.
A new venture of an existing entity that is expected to operate as a free-standing organization based to a large extent on the services provided by the new application(s) developed during the project.

There are other complexities we could imagine, but for the most part, they can be addressed as variations of these five scenarios and the basic conditions we set up for this discussion.

1. The New, Mostly Naked, Venture

As a new and growing company, there is always (or there should be) pressure to be efficient and do things right from the beginning. If you have a technical leader in your team and/or a significant part of your operation is based on leveraging software applications to provide your services, there is a natural tension – should you focus on your customers, your value proposition and lead your software development at the product level (leaving the actual development to an outsourcing partner), or should you build and control everything in-house? We’ve covered this question before and it is a significant decision – but now, we’re considering a little deeper level of thought. If you are considering an application that will actually support all or a significant part of the services you offer and your revenue – the proper operation and maintenance of that application is a strategic decision.

Your application must be:

Planned with a set of operational standards in mind.
Scalable, so it can grow along with your business without significant rewrites and basic changes in architecture.
Logically broken into maintainable and extensible modules so it can be enhanced and the value of individual services can increase as they find their place in your portfolio.
Reliable across upgrades, changing loads, and new features through the full product lifecycle.
Economical to operate and maintain based on a solid architecture and the ability to leverage automation across all levels of development, deployment, and maintenance.

Photoshoot at Cluster 8/1/16

If you are a new venture and you want to spend your time focusing on your customer, the value of your services, and managing feature-fit, you shouldn’t expect an outsourced development team to simply take on these issues from day one. They may deliver a wonderful application that provides everything you need, except the five points above. Although your customers will be happy, you have just purchased a load of technical debt. Like any loan, it will come due at some point and the longer you wait to deal with these shortcomings – the more expensive they will be to retire.

So as an entrepreneur with enough problems on your plate, you have a choice (remember – our scenario is that you’re going to outsource this project):

Dig in and hire a really competent engineering team that has real world experience in larger operations and understands where you are going. It is going to be expensive, time-consuming and at times – frustrating. You will have more expertise sitting around than you need in the early days, but it is an investment you need to make in lieu of the cost of redoing much of your early work when all your predictions come true. You don’t want to have to operate your business while changing the undercarriage as it speeds down the road. Once you have your engineering team and they understand your business model and where you are headed, they can manage your outsourced development team – but with both sides being new to you it is likely to be a fairly inefficient match in the beginning. Expect six to nine months to hire, train, and begin your project and another period of time integrating your outsourced team (which you also have to select) and your in-house engineering to the point where the combined team can be productive.
Find an outsourcing partner that can provide the engineering skills as a part of the team they provide. If you find the right vendor, the team should be scalable with the resources you need, when you need them. The application should be designed with the five points above in mind from the start. If the vendor operates as a partner with your organization, doing that part of the development and operation successfully is part of their value proposition to you. If the outsourced team has broad experience (as they should) they will bring to the table a range of solutions you may not find otherwise. They have worked in the market and delivered solutions in many different situations. Finding the right vendor will not be as quick as it might be if you were only looking for an outsourced development team (there are many pretenders in the field), but in the end, you should be able to get your project running faster, with better efficiency, lower cost, and risk.

The choice is yours and (of course) there are other factors you may have to consider in your situation – but at a high level, if cost, time-to-market, and lowering distractions from your emerging business are concerning, an outsourced engineering and development team would seem to be a strong option.

2. Existing IT Team, No Internal Software Development Team & Little or No Current Experience with Custom Apps and Modern Infrastructure

At first, this would seem to be a simple match for an outsourced development team – and in some cases it may be. But, the lack of current experience with custom application development and modern infrastructure in this situation should be concerning. Companies in this position tend to be service-based, SMB/E organizations with established client bases, regional strength in their market and a strong, competitive need to grow. As we pointed out at the beginning, we are assuming there is a budget for this project and the company is committed to outsourcing but – they have an existing market and they can’t afford to burn their existing customers while they transition to a new or expanded level of services. Because of that limitation, even without considering the eventual operation and maintenance of the new application once it is released, an organization in this position can’t afford to overburden their existing staff with development of a mission-critical, custom application and the operational planning needed while they continue to serve and maintain their existing services. The staff must be involved in the changes but only to the extent that they need to be to be able to take a role as things move forward.

Again, we come down to some choices:

Hire outside consultants to develop the operational architecture, requirements and train your internal team. Since the internal team is unlikely to be large or have the skills necessary, there will still be a need to hire additional internal resources, but it can be delayed to some extent. The downside of this strategy is that when experienced staff is added eventually, they may or may not agree with the direction put in place by the consultants and there may be a period of realignment and unexpected technical debt. Also, the use of external consultants to manage all or part of the work done by the outsourced development team can create an “arms length” relationship with the development team that can make it difficult to have the level of collaboration and trust you need to avoid communication problems, especially with agile development.
Find an outsourcing partner that can provide the engineering talent as a part them team they provide. If you find the right vendor, the team should be scalable with the resources you need, when you need them. If the outsourced team has broad experience (as they should) they will bring to the table a range of solutions you may not find otherwise. They have worked in the market and delivered solutions in many different situations. If you want to transition the outsourced team out at some point, you will still need to hire additional staff for operations and maintenance of your new applications, but you should be able to have them work in parallel with your outsourced team during the transition and lower the burden significantly.

Any of the three options could be successful but if you find the right outsourcing vendor, it would be a faster, less costly and less risky route to get your project going. But, of course, it depends on finding an outsourcing vendor with the option to include engineering skills in their team and to have a flexible approach to providing the team you need.

3. Siloed Operations, IT & Software Development Teams

This scenario lends itself to slightly larger and more technically-based operations than we discussed in the second scenario. This is the type of organization we expect to find in an established ISV with a strong client list in a specific vertical. Their operations are usually as they have been for a decade or more. Their IT staff is established and has a strong operational base. Their software development team is well-versed in their existing applications, the technologies they use and the customer base they work with. If they didn’t have to step out of that box to build this new application, we can easily assume they wouldn’t need to outsource and their engineering is just fine for what they are doing today.

But that is the rub. We’re examining a scenario where they need to extend themselves into new technologies and possibly change their operations significantly. And because we’re assuming their teams are informal, separate silos – we’re also assuming they know about the higher efficiencies they could achieve if they began to shift to a DevOps methodology but – again, like our second scenario, they have existing customers and products/services in the field to maintain and support. Like most companies in this situation, their backlog of feature requests for their existing software is just what they can handle at the moment. Adding another layer of work would just mean something would have to give. An outsourced development team, in this case, makes sense and this organization is likely to have customer-facing product development well-in-hand. But, what they don’t have is a scalable organization to match the importance of the project and a broad understanding of new technologies and architectures they need to consider to streamline their organization.

So, in this case, an outsourcing vendor who can bring in engineering experience as a part of their team skill and experience, a flexible, scalable team makeup and willingness to work in a partner role to help their existing team rethink and realign their operations could be a real asset. It is risky to try to do both at once with the same team, but if both teams have regular work to do and can collaborate to adapt operations over time it can be an opportunity that would be nearly impossible any other way. Again, the critical step is to have the skilled resources available as an integrated part of the team who can lead the effort to plan architecture and operations before development gets underway and you find that serious adjustment is needed. There are risks in this scenario, certainly, but there is also an upside to making changes in parallel with everyone onboard the organizational development and change initiative.

4. Mature Enterprise with Integrated DevOps style IT and Software Development

Again, we’ve moved the situation up the scale a bit but we’re still committed to outsourcing and we’re still considering what type of a team we need. In this case, the internal team has an implementation of DevOps and even if it is not complete, it is moving forward with staff support and commitment. Like scenarios two and three, our existing team has a number of custom applications in production and knows what it is doing when it comes to operations and development. We can assume they are fully engaged and the time allotted to this project is short, or they would simply hire as needed and do the project internally.

Since this organization has a DevOps implementation, there is already an assumption that new development resources will have experience in both development and systems architecture for continuous development and maintenance. Bringing on a team that doesn’t have that type of cross-functional experience and mindset would be a serious problem. They simply wouldn’t be able to hold up their end. In this case, if the project is to be outsourced, the incoming team must be able to handle both engineering and agile software development if they are going to hold up their end and integrate with the larger team successfully.

5. Spin Out/Off Venture with Software-Based Service

You might think this scenario would be a lot like the first, but spin-out ventures tend to be better positioned and planned simply because they usually come from organizations with a strong market position and goals that are carefully evaluated before the venture is started. In most cases, staff members come from the “mother ship” with a background in product development and deep understanding of the market they are going into. But, because the loss of technical resources inside the home organization could seriously impact production there for a prolonged period, they rarely pull out more than a few senior IT resources. With that in mind, their team is usually fully aware of current technologies and methodologies, even when they may come from an organization that culturally has not be able to move to them as quickly as they might wish.

A spin-out gives this core team an opportunity to move in fresh directions with less organizational baggage and legacy overhead. So, in some ways, they may look like scenario two with little IT in the beginning – but the big difference is they have experience in the product development side of custom software and how supporting systems can be orchestrated. They are better positioned to evaluate partners and decide on the roles they want in-house versus outsourced. Since we said at the beginning that all scenarios would be based on a decision to outsource – the question is still, “Do we just need an outsourced software development team or do we also need an integrated engineering component?”

The decision comes down to how much of the burden the mother organization wants to continue to shoulder and how expensive the “charge-backs” would be if they did. Leaders of spin-outs usually have strong stock incentives to keep costs in line and move relatively quickly to prove their direction is worthy of the risk. If using existing services inside their home company would create complications, slow product development, and increase costs – they will think twice about that direction. Since we have specified that they have already decided to outsource this project, we can assume they are not looking to spend any time taking on problems that do not get their services and products into the market. But that said, we know the IT resources in the venture are limited and if they want to go to a modern continuous release methodology so they can incrementally improve and tune their applications, they will need to have flexible, integrated teams of engineers and developers from the beginning so that their applications are architecturally and operationally sound from the beginning.

Bottom Line

The bottom line here is that software development is shifting away from internally-focused product development, siloed enterprise teams and monolithic applications to incremental release patterns, agile organizations, and customer-focused lean product development. Not everyone is there now. There are many different ways to implement change. But, all of these organizations have chosen to take on custom application development for a strategic initiative, the opportunity now is to do it better with an eye toward the future of their organization. This is just one small part of the change they seek, but it is an important one to consider. So, yes – an outsourced team that brings a range of engineering skills and experience along with their development background can be a big advantage for any of these situations, with a vendor who will operate as a partner in the organization.

Scio provides nearshore, outsourced software development and flexible teams with a range of software development and engineering skills based on our experience in many verticals and situations. Our teams can have flexible roles and their bias is toward agile methodologies broadly. If you have a project in mind, please contact us to discuss how our unique blend of skills and experience can benefit your organization. We would be happy to take the time to listen and provide insight into how we could partner for success.

Planned Rotations on Dedicated Teams – Winning Strategy?

Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, DevOps, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing

Rotating team members on agile software development teams is a controversial subject. Some leaders in the agile community are strongly opposed to the idea and won’t consider it at any level. Others are open to the subject, but frankly too concerned about the possible downsides to actively plan rotations or even hint to their customers it might be a good idea. And of course, there are the wild-eyed optimists who claim it is the best idea possible for every situation.

Our focus for this article is dedicated teams – teams with members selected for their skills and reliability over the long run. Typically, dedicated teams have no set sunset. They are dedicated to a product or part of a product suite and they generally stay through the active development and maintenance of a product lifecycle – which for enterprise software maybe years. But, that said, the ideas that bring up the subject of rotating members of a dedicated team could apply to any long term project, especially with smaller (3-5 member) teams.

And let’s be honest about one other thing too: the longer the project or product lifecycle, the more likely it is there will be an «unplanned» member rotation. Births, deaths, illness, vacations, career advancements and changes – all sorts of life events have to be managed as a part of maintaining a dedicated team. Even if the time a member is away is relatively short, in less than two weeks, the impact on the productivity of a small team needs to be managed to continue to meet client schedules and expectations. In some cases, the remaining team members can sustain production for a period of time by adding additional hours daily and on weekends, but eventually, that will take a toll on their personal commitment to the team. And when there is an unplanned need to bring in a replacement, there are consequences to the team regardless of the additional manpower provided. In fact, it is well understood that if for some reason two members of a small team needed to be replaced over a short period of time, it would be catastrophic for the team. Bringing the new member «up-to-speed» with mentoring and knowledge transfer takes time and effort of other team members away from their work. And, there is the well-understood impact of a team «forming, storming, norming, and performing» cycles as described by Tuckman. Changing a member of a small team always creates issues. Without some planning and forethought – it can kill the effectiveness of a team for an extended period of time.

So – why would anyone want to consider the idea of rotating team members on dedicated agile teams?

If unplanned changes in a dedicated team are going to happen anyway, why not be prepared? Why not have the process for selecting, integrating, training and mentoring a new team member planned, documented and tested before it actually happens? Why wouldn’t you want the expectation that «this can happen» and «this is how we deal with it» in place and in front of the team and the client from the beginning?
The longer a team works on a product, the more likely they are to develop «tunnel-vision.» They see the UI, but they become blind to the problems a new user might encounter trying to use it. They know there are newer technologies that might make something more efficient or resilient, but it takes time to test, advocate change, and demo the option to the client team. If what you have works, is it really worth the effort? The longer a team works together, the more «normal» the little quirks about a product become. In the long run, it can make them resistant to needed change and reluctant to suggest options.
Working with the same people, on the same product, eventually leads to a level of isolation that can begin to make it difficult to want to get started on the «same old stuff» each day. Developers are part of «geek culture» and love to see new technologies, get input from other sources and try «cool» things. When this happens, production slips and members of the team may become less committed to the success of the product they are working on. It doesn’t happen in a day; it is a slow drip that eventually eats away at the team and makes it less effective. It can also make individuals on the team consider career changes because they are afraid their resume will reflect stagnation rather than stability.
Bringing in «fresh (but experienced) blood» can bring cross-pollination from other experiences, new points of view on coding practices and processes, a new look at alternatives as you move forward and other benefits from another set of eyes on the project. If long term members of the project are not ready to accept new ideas, they can create strong resistance, but if they are positively primed for the idea by considering they could also benefit individually and as a team, it can be a shot in the arm for the team.
«Ownership» of a product, or an area of responsibility, can be a strong motivator for a team. Their understanding of its deeper value and continued success is part of their pride and keeps the team on track. But, there is also a downside. If the team is the single point of knowledge and «truth» for a product, they are also the single point of failure. If there is no base of knowledge about the product outside of the team, in the wider pool of developers around them, there is no way to replace a team member easily or help them if there is a problem that causes a loss of a member or if the team runs into a serious internal disagreement (it does happen).
Operationally, these long-term teams become silos. Outside the team, they are the go-to subject matter experts that always have the answers. Inside the team, individuals tend to become specialists, filling a niche that no one else can come close to. This not only runs against the whole concept of «agile organizations» – it becomes a growing risk within the organization.

There are more reasons too – but those concerns represent some of the more common drivers of the idea. They are all real issues and the problems the teams dealing with them have an impact on the projects they are in. But – does planned rotation actually solve the problems? Does the upside outweigh the downsides? Can rotation be planned well enough to overcome internal team dynamics? Will the supposed benefits last long enough to make rotations something you want to do? Can you actually present a case that would make client support, rather than oppose, the practice?

The answer would have to be – it all depends on implementation.

Like any change, member rotations have to be sold internally before they can be implemented.
Frank conversations about the health of teams, experiences in long term engagements have to be surfaced and alternative solutions have to be discussed.
The timing and requirements for new members have to be considered and accepted by the existing team members. Simply dumping the idea on them without preparation is sure to bring disaster.
The level of the incoming team member will make a difference in acceptance. Replacing a senior member with another senior developer may be more difficult than bringing in a mid-level or junior developer in their place. With less seniority, the new member will have lower expectations and less to live up to. They will be more accepting during knowledge transfer and mentoring and give existing team members new opportunities to grow. But if the outgoing member is considered to be a team leader, the impact may be very deep no matter who is brought in.
If the practice is fairly new within the organization, replacing a team member is likely to be more problematic regardless of planning and thought. The practice can be new institutionally or within the team, it really doesn’t matter. If team members are not experienced with the concept, issues will arise. Assuming the issue will iron themselves out eventually is not a good way to manage change.
Frequency is important. Single-member rotation will always cause thrash and lost productivity no matter how well it is planned. A team can only sustain so much change without becoming distracted and losing their center. In complex environments, it may take a considerable time for a new member to build up the necessary knowledge base. Most industry experience seems to circle around a period between six and nine months for the change of one member. More than that and the team might never gain cohesion again. Less than that and silos will begin to form. But, there is no perfect point. You can’t change a member during a critical release for a product, no matter what the calendar says. You have to work with the client team to gain acceptance and cooperation. Timing is a hard nut to crack and will be different in every situation.

This is an important and evolving area of management for outsourced agile teams. It is not widely discussed in the software development industry. Clients come to outsourcing vendors to avoid issues like team cohesion, resilience, and long-term stability. It may be difficult to bring them into a conversation about an issue that is seen as a vendor responsibility.

But, there are some ideas that are coming forward and worth considering. Larger outsourcing vendors can propose a dedicated «pool» rather than a team. The actual team in production continues to be a small number, but the vendor commits to a larger group, perhaps 7-10 including the active team, of developers that are involved and can become a team member with less overhead from change. This allows the members of the pool to become involved in project and product discussions, review code, and be the sounding board for ideas. There has to be an adjustment of the cost to allow this kind of an arrangement and a clear commitment by the vendor to avoiding the issues that are considered part of dedicated team contracts, but in certain situations, it is worth considering.

In the final analysis, it is hard to value the practice of rotating team members on dedicated teams. It can seem like a great idea if you have experienced the downsides of long-term engagements where unplanned changes and team stagnation become barriers to success. If the motivation, implementation, and outcomes are not carefully considered and monitored, it can become a serious distraction from productive development. Neither outcome is good so this is an important consideration and the decisions are likely to be different in every situation.

If you have experience with team member rotation (and not just fears or wild optimism) – I would be interested to hear your thoughts. This is still an unsettled area in agile team dynamics.

Scio is a provider of outsourced, dedicated and project teams for agile software development to our nearshore clients in North America. We have experience with many team and project configurations and would love to discuss how we could help with your next project. Please contact us with your questions.

Measuring Performance & Productivity in Software Development Teams

Agile Methodology, Customer Experience, Nearshore, Product Development, Project Management, Successful Outsourcing

Work is always measured in some way. If you are doing repetitive work, the tendency is to measure the number of repetitions, like the pounds of fruit picked by a field worker in an hour or a day. If you are doing knowledge work, the tendency is to simply measure hours of work spent on the problem, assuming that a) the person doing the work has the necessary set of skills and a comprehensive knowledge base of the subject at hand and b) they spent enough time to evaluate the problem sufficiently and provide a balanced solution. If you are doing time and/or payment-dependent contract work, the main consideration is did you complete the work assigned in the contracted period and at the specified cost?

This all seems relatively benign and normal in the world of work because it assigns a value to work that can then be measured and evaluated in various ways. Did you pick more fruit this week than last? Did you solve more problems in this quarter? Did you complete all your contracted work on time and budget?

Software development is, of course, one of the most valuable types of knowledge work being done globally today. Since development is usually the domain of teams and is at this time, largely done with some form of agile and/or lean methodologies, the measurements tend to be a combination of individual and team metrics applied by various means. Some common metrics are:

Lines of Code – often expressed in 1,000’s of lines per person month with variations for the size of team and duration of the project.
Cost Modeling – the total cost of a project, against the number of individuals on the team(s) required and length of the project. Formulas vary depending on cost per hour spread among individuals (role and experience), method of averaging, productive hours vs. billed hours, total lines of code in finished work, quality measures, efficiency measures and more…
Standard Burn-Down Chart

Function Points – measures of the amount of functionality or user stories (and the points assigned to the story) completed by teams within a period of time (usually measured across sprints and the project as a whole) completed and released. Not all measures of function points completed include the successful release to production.

When we get beyond these three common methods and their minor variations, we start getting into more complex models (!!) that tie team performance, quality, project length, man-hours, adherence to production and methodology standards and complex team models in DevOps implementations.

We Have Questions

At the end of the exercise, however, it is done, we end up with some sort of measurement of the work of software development. But as we do, we need to ask ourselves a few important questions:

What does our measurement tell us? What is it not telling us? If we are measuring lines of code or functions, is the measurement telling us if the work was efficient or just an output meant to produce more (or a given number of) lines/functions over a given period? Were the lines of code or functions really efficient and useful? Programming is very comparable to writing. Some writers are more efficient at expressing thought and others see a more elegant way to express a thought without addressing it directly. Some programmers are more efficient because they reuse code multiple times throughout the source with efficient use of variables. Some functions in a program are critical and getting them right is tough, requiring time and effort. Other functions are simply «eye-wash» and don’t have a real bottom-line value. There as many ways to game the system as there are ways to produce better code with fewer lines. Every programmer, every team, and every project has different dynamics depending on the language being used, the type of environment, the technical problem being dealt with and many other factors. If you use a pure «number of X metric,» you have to be clear about what it means and doesn’t address.
Is our measurement comparable? Can it be used over the long term or compared across projects or teams? Frequently, this is where the complex math becomes part of the equation and frankly, begins to fail to do its job effectively. The more we try to «normalize» measurements across a single project, between teams, and across projects and teams, the more subjective the outcome becomes. Were the technical hurdles encountered at the beginning of Project A really comparable to Project B? If we decide there is a significant difference, how do we adjust for it? Did Team A experience more changes in team composition than Team B? How do we account for that issue? Are we comparing skill levels, experience, time to reach «normal productivity» or some other factor? Was Team A really suited to provide the skills and experience needed for the given project? Did their productivity fail to reach the levels expected because of issues outside of their control? In most cases, the more you try to normalize between measures of productivity between individuals, teams, and projects, the less sure you can be you have a reasonable common measure. And in the end, the question becomes, is a comparable metric what we really need?
Isn’t any measurement better than no measurement? Can we afford to fly blind? Certainly, if you have an outsourced team, multiple teams, and/or multiple projects you have to begin to understand why some projects seem to work well and some don’t. You need to be able to judge if a project is going off the tracks so you can get it back in line before the problem becomes critical. Finding ways to measure performance and productivity would seem to be the best tool to address the common issues in software development projects. But if the measurements we are using aren’t really addressing the problems we have, how are they helping us? Are they really more than just busy work for managers and bean counters?

The more we look at the problem, the more we begin to understand that measurement for the sake of monitoring «something» isn’t really useful. But on the other hand, measuring any aspect of software development is better than monitoring nothing at all and simply hoping everything will work out in the end. Even a weak measurement provides some level of confidence if it is used consistently and we understand its shortcomings well enough.

In agile teams, there is another, more important way to look at things. If we give the team simple methods they agree on and understand, like story points and burn down charts, they will know when they are performing well and when they are pushing too large a boulder up a hill. Inside the team, they know who is consistently performing and producing efficient code with fewer problems. The team knows when its backlog is too great to finish in the allotted time. Team members learn quickly who can be asked for pointers on how to approach a problem properly and who cannot be depended on reliably. We can stand around, pointing out issues with the common ways to measure agile team performance, but their value is those common agile methods are basically useful to the team to understand where they stand in relation to the work ahead of them and their quality performance. Where we get into trouble is when we try to extract the common measures and try to draw larger conclusions from them.

The Reality is – Communication is the Key

If we get past trying to use performance metrics outside of a single project and narrow our focus to what they do for a team inside of a project, we begin to see their value more clearly. The team knows what is going on. They may attempt to fool themselves or others, but in the end, they can see the light in the tunnel and they know if it is a successful end to the project or an approaching train. The problem is to get them to trust each other and the larger team enough to surface the problems they see as soon as they see them, without fear.

The level of trust and responsibility required for open communication and collaboration is perhaps the largest problem faced in software development projects. It is the «why» behind the invention and popularity of the agile and lean methodologies in wide use today. Conversely, the larger the organization, the more critical and costly the project is to the organization, the less likely it is that the team will feel and be enabled to inquire and speak out about the problems they believe they are facing. In a large organization, metrics are the shorthand to avoid having «high touch» with every team and individual. In a costly, critical project, metrics are meant to be the «truth-tellers» to assure stakeholders that things are well controlled, even though everyone knows that metrics can be gamed without much problem. And the more the metrics are relied on, instead of the knowledge inside of the team, the more likely it is the project will get out of hand before the problems are addressed.

Responsibility. Trust. Communication.

So what is the bottom line on measuring performance and productivity in software development projects?

Measurement is most useful inside the software development team itself,
Planning Poker

where the knowledge resides about what is really going on from day today. Everywhere else, it is just as likely to be smoke and mirrors as it is, to be honest, and useful – depending on who is using the metrics and for what purpose. If the team doesn’t understand the metrics applied and can’t use them to better understand where they are in relation to the work to be done, their quality performance and general efficiency as a team, the metrics will fail to give back their primary value – keeping the team and project on track.
The agile methodology relies on individual and team responsibility, trust and communication. If these three points cannot be achieved within a team, agile and scrum are just a bunch of processes and procedures that may or may not be helpful in organizing work. If the team is just «going through the motions» in taking responsibility for tasks, assessing and managing their backlog, and participating in standups and retrospectives, additional metrics and measurement will not provide much value. They will provide information to a larger audience too late to enable outside forces to do more than triage injuries to the project.
Working through what may appear to be problems or what may seem to be a simple solution requires peer-level coaching and communication, not blame. If we understand that the team itself really knows what is going on – getting them to assess the problem honestly and figure out how to address it requires something other than pointing fingers, avoiding issues and top-down communication. It also means that the team needs to take responsibility, as soon as anyone recognizes a problem could be on the horizon, to consider it seriously and determine both the size of the problem and solutions that could be used to address it. And so what if the team raises an issue that may turn out to be nothing of great importance? We’ve been called to action to look at it and we will all come out of the conversation wiser. If everyone in the conversation addresses each other as a peer, rather than hierarchically, there is a good reason to think that the next time a problem is encountered or perceived, it will be openly addressed, rather than swept under the rug.

Three points to consider and use in conjunction with standard agile and scrum-based tools. You can use more and you can draw all sorts of conclusions from the systems you bring together. But in the end, if they don’t bring immediate value back to a current project, what value are they really serving?

Looking for a development team? Contact us we can help you!

Scio provides nearshore software development services for our client base in North America. We work closely with our clients to ensure that the projects we are involved in have the level of communication and understanding needed to reach successful outcomes. If you have a project where you think we could help, please contact us. We would be happy to discuss your needs.