I would go with shorter sprints. (I go with 2 weeks). From my experience with shorter iterations there are many advantages. Some of those are:
- there are more opportunities to learn from mistakes in 2 weeks than in longer iteration. Retrospectives for example are more frequent within a span of a project which would lead to improved efficiency in the team. (faster in the long run.)
- The team is more focused on what they are working on ( i.e. because of smaller iteration backlog log list) so there will be an increase in quality;
- Easier for everyone to know and understand what everyone else is doing. Example; its easier to understand and comprehend items to be worked by all members in 2 weeks than 4 weeks.
- People will follow the process better.
Friday, September 3, 2010
What are some of you approaches to doing a retrospective? Do you have any creative activities that can help the facilitae the team to have a dialogue
At the end of each iteration, all the members would meet in a room. One of the members would stand in front of the white board to drive this meeting. Every iteration it would be someone different from the team ( This to prevent strongly opinionated people from taking over the meeting all the time). The one driving the meeting will draw two columns on the board.
1- What went well in the iteration
2- What didn't go well in the iteration
People would make suggestions/comments and the person driving the meeting will be writing on the wall the suggestions/comments in the appropriate column.
When a comment is made on the "What didn't go well" the discussion regarding "what can we do to avoid what didn't go well" is asked and a discussion goes underway naturally. As a SM the expectation is to log this somewhere and follow through some of the the suggestion from this question. You as a facilitator will need to do that to make sure the team can work as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
The expectation in the meeting is that everyone will need try and bring something to the table. If that's not happening, then as a SM you would ask on those not talking about what they think (show that you care about what they think). Eventually it will be the norm for everyone to contribute.
1- What went well in the iteration
2- What didn't go well in the iteration
People would make suggestions/comments and the person driving the meeting will be writing on the wall the suggestions/comments in the appropriate column.
When a comment is made on the "What didn't go well" the discussion regarding "what can we do to avoid what didn't go well" is asked and a discussion goes underway naturally. As a SM the expectation is to log this somewhere and follow through some of the the suggestion from this question. You as a facilitator will need to do that to make sure the team can work as smoothly and efficiently as possible.
The expectation in the meeting is that everyone will need try and bring something to the table. If that's not happening, then as a SM you would ask on those not talking about what they think (show that you care about what they think). Eventually it will be the norm for everyone to contribute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)