If you’ve ever worked on a small software project—maybe just you and a friend, or a handful of colleagues—you know how quickly things can move. Decisions happen in real time, code gets written and tested in the same afternoon, and if something breaks, you’re usually the one fixing it. In these environments, process is light, sometimes even invisible. You might jot down a few notes, keep a shared folder, or use a simple chat thread to track what’s next. The main driver is the talent and experience of the people in the room.
But as teams grow, and as projects start to involve more moving parts—multiple developers, designers, testers, and even different departments—the need for process becomes less about convenience and more about survival. Suddenly, you’re not just building features; you’re managing dependencies, coordinating releases, and making sure everyone’s work fits together without stepping on toes. The question isn’t “Do we need process?” but “How much process is enough—and when does it start getting in the way?”
Small Teams: Talent Over Templates
In small teams, process should be minimal and flexible. The main considerations are:
- Communication: Is everyone clear on what’s being built, and why?
- Tracking: Do you have a simple way to know what’s done and what’s next?
- Quality: Is there a basic check before something goes live?
Often, the best “process” is just a shared understanding and a willingness to adapt. If your team is highly skilled and trusts each other, you can get away with lightweight tools—maybe a Trello board, a shared document, or even just regular check-ins. The risk of over-engineering is real: too much ceremony can slow you down, create frustration, and distract from the actual work.
Tip: Let your team’s strengths drive your practices. If someone’s great at testing, let them own that. If another is a natural organizer, let them set the rhythm. The process should support the people, not the other way around.
Growing Teams: Process as Insurance
As your team expands, the cost of miscommunication and missed steps rises quickly. Now you’re dealing with:
- Multiple contributors to the same codebase: Merge conflicts, duplicate work, and integration headaches.
- Cross-department collaboration: Marketing wants a feature yesterday, QA needs more time, and legal has compliance concerns.
- Onboarding new members: How do you get someone up to speed without slowing everyone else down?
Here, process becomes a kind of insurance policy. You need:
- Version control and branching strategies (e.g., Git workflows)
- Issue tracking and documentation
- Regular standups or syncs
- Defined review and release steps
External research backs this up: studies from the Project Management Institute and software engineering literature show that as team size increases, the risk of defects, delays, and rework grows unless there’s a shared framework for collaboration and accountability. For example, the PMI highlights how schedule delays and resource bottlenecks become more frequent as teams grow, and recommends structured prioritization and agile practices to mitigate these risks (PMI: Dealing with Delays). Academic studies also confirm that most defects are caused by process failures rather than individual mistakes, and that mature organizations with established processes see fewer costly errors and less rework (Defect Prevention in Software Development). [pmi.org] [isixsigma.com]
But there’s a tradeoff. More process means more overhead—meetings, documentation, approvals. It can slow down your best people and make simple changes feel like a slog. The key is to scale process only as much as you need, and to revisit it regularly. If a step isn’t adding value, cut it or simplify it.
Large Projects: Process as a Platform
In big organizations or multi-team projects, process isn’t just helpful—it’s essential. You’re dealing with:
- Distributed teams and time zones
- Complex dependencies (e.g., shared services, APIs, compliance gates)
- Multiple stakeholders with competing priorities
Here, process is less about individual productivity and more about making sure the whole machine runs smoothly. You need:
- Clear roles and responsibilities
- Formalized workflows (e.g., Agile, Scrum, Kanban, or custom hybrids)
- Automated testing and deployment pipelines
- Governance for compliance, risk, and quality
At this scale, process can feel heavy, but it’s what keeps the project from derailing. The challenge is to keep it visible and understandable—so everyone knows not just what to do, but why it matters.
External insight: Research from Harvard Business Review and McKinsey suggests that organizations with well-defined, adaptable processes outperform those with rigid or ad-hoc practices, especially when navigating change or scaling up (HBR: Scaling Up Transformational Innovations, McKinsey: Software Development Handbook). [hbr.org] [mckinsey.com]
A Practical Example: Startups vs. Conglomerates
Having worked for both nimble startups and sprawling conglomerates, I’ve seen firsthand how process can make or break a team.
In a startup:
Our team was tiny—just two developers and the founder, who doubled as CTO and product owner. We had a few bits of process, but honestly, most were there to show investors we were “doing things right.” We used Git for version control, but there were no controls on merging, no branching strategies, and no code reviews. If you wanted to push to main, you just did it. Decisions happened in Slack or over coffee, and features shipped as soon as someone thought they were ready. The upside? We moved fast and could pivot on a dime. The downside? Bugs slipped through, and when we tried to onboard a new developer, it was chaos—no documentation, no onboarding checklist, and no way to know what was safe to change. Eventually, we had to introduce just enough structure—basic code review, a simple README, and a Kanban board—to keep quality up and make growth possible, but we always had to balance process against speed and creativity.
In a large company:
I joined a global development team with dozens of engineers spread across continents. Every change required a ticket, a review, a test plan, and sometimes a compliance sign-off. The process was there for a reason: it kept us from breaking things that millions of users depended on. But sometimes, the bureaucracy slowed innovation to a crawl. A simple UI tweak could take weeks to get approved. The lesson? Too little process leads to chaos and costly mistakes; too much process stifles innovation and frustrates your best people.
What I learned:
- In startups, process should be just enough to keep you honest and help you grow.
- In big teams, process is the glue—but it needs to be revisited and trimmed regularly.
- The sweet spot is where process supports the team’s strengths and adapts to the project’s needs.
References & Further Reading:
Leave a Reply