5 ms·

Agile should include retrospectives, and retrospectives should allow your team to change anything within the process as you need. In fact, all agile needs is g

Agile should include retrospectives, and retrospectives should allow your team to change anything within the process as you need. In fact, all agile needs is good retrospectives, and all the rest you can decide there.

jordanbeiber 5y ago
This is true. Being agile is, and should be, an ever changing process. You are never done. It’s like shaping a system of people. I think of it as 50% of the development endeavor at larger shops. Retros are used to identify ”technical organization debt” starting to build up, in a way.
TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
IN my experience, the same two or three people speak up in retrospectives… and no one else, ever.
- eitland 5y ago
  I guess you are one of those? In that case get the two others with you and decide a new rule: nobody leaves the retrospective before they've spoken. Warning: might backfire, one team I worked with scheduled meetings right before lunch so they wouldn't stretch out. It backfired: these meetings continued into our lunch every single time until I think I or someone else started just walking out as lunch started.
- koonsolo 5y ago
  Then you might have an inexperienced manager or moderator. All it takes is "Hey John, I didn't hear you in the discussion yet. What are your thoughts?". "If there was 1 thing we should improve, what do you think it should be?". Stuff like that. I know even then it's sometimes hard, but at least you should try pulling things out of them.
  - Supermancho 5y ago
    > Then you might have an inexperienced manager or moderator. More likely you have people who are paid to do some workload which they are generally happy with. They aren't going to be motivated into doing more by accident, especially through their own action. This is the vast majority of people in the world, so good luck countering that momentum over the long term. Effective software project management is an interesting and hard problem, granted, so many people are interested in how to tackle it. I get it. What I see is that "agile" criticisms are really criticisms of it's inefficacy in giving employers more for their dollar from the employee perspective. I don't see why I should get too invested in minimizing my relative value.
    - jdlshore 5y ago
      Agile assumes people are intrinsically motivated to do good work. (This is called “theory Y” management.) It doesn’t work if people have to be extrinsically motivated (“theory X”). If you have a bunch of people who are just doing the minimum they’re paid to do, with no passion and excitement for the work itself or their team, you either need a different method or different people.

jordanbeiber 5y ago

This is true. Being agile is, and should be, an ever changing process. You are never done. It’s like shaping a system of people. I think of it as 50% of the development endeavor at larger shops. Retros are used to identify ”technical organization debt” starting to build up, in a way.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

IN my experience, the same two or three people speak up in retrospectives… and no one else, ever.

eitland 5y ago
I guess you are one of those? In that case get the two others with you and decide a new rule: nobody leaves the retrospective before they've spoken. Warning: might backfire, one team I worked with scheduled meetings right before lunch so they wouldn't stretch out. It backfired: these meetings continued into our lunch every single time until I think I or someone else started just walking out as lunch started.
koonsolo 5y ago
Then you might have an inexperienced manager or moderator. All it takes is "Hey John, I didn't hear you in the discussion yet. What are your thoughts?". "If there was 1 thing we should improve, what do you think it should be?". Stuff like that. I know even then it's sometimes hard, but at least you should try pulling things out of them.
- Supermancho 5y ago
  > Then you might have an inexperienced manager or moderator. More likely you have people who are paid to do some workload which they are generally happy with. They aren't going to be motivated into doing more by accident, especially through their own action. This is the vast majority of people in the world, so good luck countering that momentum over the long term. Effective software project management is an interesting and hard problem, granted, so many people are interested in how to tackle it. I get it. What I see is that "agile" criticisms are really criticisms of it's inefficacy in giving employers more for their dollar from the employee perspective. I don't see why I should get too invested in minimizing my relative value.
  - jdlshore 5y ago
    Agile assumes people are intrinsically motivated to do good work. (This is called “theory Y” management.) It doesn’t work if people have to be extrinsically motivated (“theory X”). If you have a bunch of people who are just doing the minimum they’re paid to do, with no passion and excitement for the work itself or their team, you either need a different method or different people.