One of the most awkward aspects of the Venturing program in LDS units is the nature of the source of young men who participate. Wards are organized geographically, and members are expected to participate in the ward within which they live. This often leads to wards with only a few priests, sometimes only one or two. Even wards with as many as four or five priest-aged boys can present challenges in keeping a Venturing program running.
Some of the aspects that need to be addressed for smaller groups include the following. First, the crew organization is impacted. There often aren't enough members to fill the officer positions (although Treasurer might be the last needing to be filled). Also, the suggested format for carrying out crew business through parliamentary procedure feels particularly forced when there are only a few boys. Perhaps a small-group variation could be developed to practice the essence of group dynamics without imposing all of the overhead. In addition, the idea of rotating responsibilities for planning activities leads to frequent repeats, and I've seen that this can become discouraging or overwhelming for some youth.
Second, the activity program becomes vulnerable. This is especially true of activity programs where multiple weeks are required to finish the program. What sometimes happens is that the collection of individuals attending changes each week so that there are not enough (or any) members from the previous week to move on to later stages, and training gets repeated. Later activities get bumped or postponed. Also, the psychological impulse to try to schedule activities so that more people can attend can sometimes make it impossible to do. (Somehow, getting 5/10 on a campout seems more successful than 2/4.)
Third, the voice of the dissident is louder. The idea of ruling by majority doesn't seem to work well in small groups. Consensus seems to be the more natural goal. For example, when I encouraged my crew to select a crew uniform, they didn't have any problem with having a uniform, and even though it sounded like an okay idea. But each of the three members had a different idea of good style, and there were three different proposals. For a while, each maintained one vote apiece. After a while, two of them managed to agree to an option, but the third objected that he'd never wear it. The issue ended up being tabled, as there was not a desire to have a uniform that not everyone would wear. Perhaps following the gospel model of councils and common consent is more appropriate, where members are encouraged to provide discussion and comments, and the presiding officer takes the comments under consideration and proposes a decision for the approval of the council, followed by a true vote on the decision (not just a "all in favor").
Maybe there are other issues that arise. If so, let me know so I can include them. But these are the ones that I've come across.