3 ms·

In my experience, the best you can hope for from retrospectives is small tweaks. The length of sprints, how standups should go, who writes what in tickets. But

In my experience, the best you can hope for from retrospectives is small tweaks. The length of sprints, how standups should go, who writes what in tickets. But you can't change the process to be not-Scrum. Once a company has decided "we do Scrum", you can't argue in retrospectives that sprints are completely artificial and unnecessary for the project in this phase, or that things would go much smoother if devs talked directly to the customer instead of through a product owner. Or even that tickets on a board are not a useful way to work at the moment. Things have to stay Scrum.

t43562 3y ago
Why not? I talked to customers as a dev - it's just that customers couldn't come and pester me to make me do extra work or change priorities. Is that too hard or inconvenient to understand? Scrum fits new development more than maintenance and I've never found any other "phase" where it doesn't fit reasonably. I've been in situations where I've thought we needed longer sprints. Ultimately if the overhead is too much we used the retrospectives to remove it. The problem is if you're the only one in the team that wants some change - then you cannot force it.