Development Team Structure at ScienceSoft
We invest in building cohesive, responsible, and energetic teams that provide the right skills at the right time for each individual project. By leveraging role synergies and pragmatic process automation, we are able to collaborate efficiently and prevent burnout, contributing to successful project delivery.
How ScienceSoft Cultivates Effective Development Teams
We organize teams around projects rather than keep fixed structures, allowing for dynamic reconfiguration of skills and interests.
We grant teams the autonomy to make work decisions to increase motivation and satisfaction but maintain accountability to ensure that independence does not lead to misalignment with project goals.
We take into account our team members’ individual interests and strengths, boosting intrinsic motivation and providing opportunities for growth.
We regularly collect and analyze performance data, client feedback, and team self-assessments to identify areas for improvement. This enables us to make informed adjustments to our structures, processes, and strategies.
In projects where team members are distributed across multiple time zones, we make sure to have at least 2-4-hour overlaps in their work time to facilitate effective real-time communication.
We place professionals together based not only on their technical skills but also on their interpersonal dynamics and compatibility.
How Each Role Contributes to Your Project Success
|
Depending on the nature of the project, we can enhance the team with additional roles, for example, motion and 3D designers, data scientists to implement AI and machine learning, big data engineers, BI developers, data analysts, and cloud engineers. |
How Team Structure Evolves Across SDLC Stages
In the Waterfall model, roles are often sequential and predefined, with clear handoffs from business analysts and solution architects in the early stages to developers and QA engineers as the project progresses. Conversely, Agile emphasizes cross-functional teams and collaboration as all stages of the development process are interwoven and repeated in iterative cycles.
We like to keep things efficient by building lean teams where every member is crucial to the project's success.
For smaller or specialized projects, one person may take on multiple roles if they have the right skills and experience for it. For example, in a recent lab diagnostics software project, our business analyst also acted as a product owner to reduce costs and streamline decisions. Meanwhile, the Scrum Master managed the schedule, resources, and quality checks since the project didn’t require a full-time project manager.
When building an MVP for an IoT energy monitoring system, our project manager and IoT development team handled business analysis themselves since the requirements were straightforward and familiar to them. In another case, senior developers handled QA and DevOps tasks because they already knew the system inside out from previous reverse engineering.
At the same time, we understand the risks of making one person wear too many hats, from late delivery and quality concerns to burnout. We only combine roles when we recognize that there’s a capable expert on our team who can effectively meet multiple project needs.
Business Analyst vs. Project Manager vs. Product Owner vs. Scrum Master — What Is the Difference?
|
Business analyst |
Product owner |
Project manager |
Scrum Master |
---|---|---|---|---|
Primary role
|
Eliciting and documenting business needs and translating them into software specifications for the development team. |
Defining long-term software goals and project priorities, defining what "done" means for each task, and ensuring that the software delivers the greatest possible benefits to the business and users. |
Planning and driving the project, making sure everything stays on track, on time, and within budget. |
Facilitating and continuously enhancing Scrum processes, removing impediments to project progress, and ensuring the team adheres to Agile practices. |
When they’re essential
|
Projects with complex business requirements, conflicting stakeholder priorities, or the need for detailed documentation of business processes and workflows. |
Almost any Scrum-based project where you need to keep the team focused on delivering tangible business value. |
Projects that involve a large development team or multiple teams. Projects that require complex risk management, budgeting, and scheduling. |
Fast-paced Agile projects (e.g., for startups), projects where requirements change frequently. Large-scale Agile projects with remote and distributed teams. |
When you may not need them
|
Projects where the requirements are simple or deeply familiar to the development team. |
Projects where a business analyst, PM, team lead, or software architect has a deep understanding of the product vision and stakeholder needs and can act as a proxy product owner. |
Projects with a very narrow scope (e.g., prototype development, feature enhancement, security patch development) or short duration. |
Projects with mature teams that have well-established processes and clear communication flows. Projects where the PM has Scrum Master certifications. |
Check a detailed comparison of BA, PM, PO, and SM responsibilities
|
Business analyst |
Product owner |
Project manager |
Scrum Master |
---|---|---|---|---|
Software vision development
|
|
|
|
|
Gathering requirements
|
|
|
|
|
Creating user stories
|
|
Reviews and approves user stories, ensuring they align with the product goals and priorities. |
|
|
Defining acceptance criteria
|
|
|
|
|
Resource planning
|
|
|
|
|
Scope management
|
|
|
|
|
Backlog prioritization
|
Refines and elaborates on backlog items, helping the product owner detail acceptance criteria and ensuring their clarity for the development team. |
Owns the product backlog, making decisions about what to prioritize and when to release features. |
|
|
Stakeholder communication
|
|
|
Reports on the project progress. |
|
Development team management
|
|
|
|
|
Project progress monitoring
|
Monitors the progress of requirement fulfillment and provides updates on any changes or issues (gaps or ambiguities) related to requirements. |
Tracks the delivered business value. |
Tracks project progress against the plan, adjusting it as necessary to keep the project on track. |
|
Risk management
|
|
|
|
|
Change management
|
Analyzes the impact of changes in requirements and communicates them to the PM. |
Makes decisions about accepting or rejecting changes based on their impact on the software vision. |
Manages the change control process, ensuring that changes are documented, approved, and integrated into the project plan. |
|
Quality assurance oversight
|
|
|
|
|
Customer feedback integration
|
|
|
|
|
Involvement stage
|
Discovery and software requirements specification |
Discovery to maintenance |
Discovery to maintenance |
Development to maintenance |
How Agile Development Team Structure Changes Depending on Project Specifics
Below are several illustrative examples of how and why we can vary the development team structure depending on external factors.
For small and medium-sized projects
ScienceSoft’s experience shows that the most efficient and predictable Agile development is achieved with a team of 5+/-2 or 7+/-2 members. Larger teams often face communication breakdowns, reduced cohesion, duplication of efforts, slower updates and reviews, diffused responsibility, and increased potential for conflicts. Conversely, smaller teams may lack the diverse skill set required for effective delivery.
The default Agile team composition includes three developers, one QA engineer, and one project manager/product owner. Depending on specific project needs, we can also include domain experts, business analysts, system architects, designers, DevOps engineers, security engineers, and compliance experts.
For large projects
At ScienceSoft, we also often deal with projects that require 20 or more engineers to be involved (often due to the project size, complexity, or speed of delivery). In such cases, we opt for a Scaled Agile approach. This implies that several Agile teams work together to deliver one large software solution. Additionally, a supervisory team coordinates all processes.
For modular architectures
Modular architectures, like SOA and microservices, break down the application into a collection of services that are responsible for specific business functions (see a sample architecture for a fitness app built on microservices). In such cases, Agile teams are often structured around individual services or groups of related services. Each team is responsible for the entire lifecycle of their service(s). This approach enhances agility and speeds up the software launch as teams develop, deploy, and scale their services independently without waiting for each other.
Large or complex modular projects usually need a supervisory team due to multiple integrations, technological diversity, the critical nature of certain services, regulatory needs, and the size and spread of the teams. For smaller or simpler projects, a full supervisory team won’t be needed. Instead, the responsibilities can be distributed among a smaller number of team members.
For mirroring arrangements
In the mirrored team model (a.k.a parallel teams structure or client shadowing), dedicated development teams can be linked to various departments within the client organization, different user journeys, or distinct customer segments such as businesses and individuals.
Mostly, we use the mirrored team model in scenarios where:
- The project involves the development of complex systems that require a deep understanding of the client's business processes and operational nuances. This is especially relevant when the systems are legacy, and there's no up-to-date documentation.
- There is an expectation of long-term collaboration, and having mirrored structures helps in building a sustained partnership. The development process needs to be highly integrated with the client's existing systems, processes, or workflows.
The mirrored model typically involves more in-depth engagement with stakeholders and users than other Agile team structures:
- Communication is frequent and integrated into daily routines. Regular touchpoints such as daily stand-ups, weekly meetings, and monthly reviews are common, but there is also a strong emphasis on ad-hoc communication to address issues as they arise.
- Communication methods are varied. They include interviews, joint workshops, and meetings to discuss progress, challenges, and feedback. Day-in-the-life and onsite field studies are also actively used. Additionally, prototyping and beta version sessions engage users early in the design process and help refine features based on real-world feedback.
- All development team members participate actively. UI/UX designers and developers observe end users to identify inefficiencies and improve interfaces. QA engineers collaborate with users to create test cases based on actual usage.
This approach leads to more empathetic, efficient, and effective software solutions that correspond to the client's operational realities, needs, challenges, and business objectives.
Here's an example involving a new inventory management system for a large retail company. The development teams are organized around business functions.
What Clients Like About ScienceSoft's Teams
Leo Burnett Worldwide: “We have a fantastic team of people doing our projects”
For four years, ScienceSoft has developed diverse software for a world-famous advertising agency Leo Burnett Worldwide. Sam Gooby, Head of Platform Production at Leo Burnett, reveals his first-hand experience of cooperation with our team.