How Big Tech Runs Tech Projects and the Curious Absence of Scrum

The core insight is that project-management frameworks are tools, not guarantees of success. In large tech firms, engineers lead most projects, choose their own processes, and rely on strong tooling and autonomy rather than rigid Scrum ceremonies. This flexibility, not the presence of a formal methodology, correlates with higher team satisfaction and faster shipping cycles.

Survey data from over 100 companies shows a split: startups and venture-backed tech firms gravitate toward informal or hybrid approaches like "plan-build-ship" or Kanban, while non-tech or heavily regulated firms often stick with Scrum or SAFe. Teams with dedicated project managers sometimes report lower satisfaction, especially when they cannot shield engineers from shifting requirements. Autonomy and the ability to iterate on the process itself emerge as the strongest predictors of morale and performance.

Big-Tech examples illustrate why the same framework that works at a startup may falter elsewhere. Companies like Uber use a tiny ratio of Technical Program Managers (TPMs) to engineers and let individual teams pick RFC-style planning, Kanban, or lightweight Scrum. First-class developer tooling-fast CI/CD, main-branch development, and transparent metrics-enables rapid feedback loops without heavy process overhead. The lack of a dedicated project manager is compensated by empowered engineering leads who rotate the project-lead role, spreading leadership experience across the team.

For leaders moving between environments, the takeaway is to evaluate the organizational context first: does the company provide autonomous, cross-functional teams with strong tooling? If so, imposing a heavyweight process will likely hurt. Instead, focus on giving teams ownership, clear goals, and the freedom to experiment with the workflow that best fits their product and scale. This pragmatic approach maximizes delivery speed while keeping engineers engaged.