3 ms·
I’ve seen “scrum” work. The single most important thing we did was the retro always happened. In the retro we somehow managed to create a safe space where we co
by milesvp 3y ago
I’ve seen “scrum” work. The single most important thing we did was the retro always happened. In the retro we somehow managed to create a safe space where we could honestly discuss ways to improve. This may never be repeatable depending on the culture of the company, but the goal of a retro is to be a safe space where honesty is possible. Without honesty there can be no improvement to the process. Is some ceremony providing no value? That should come up in the retro. Proposed fixes should surface in the retro. Maybe you dump the ceremony, or do it less often. Ceremony is sort of stupid in general, but it’s often there because historically for some large percent of teams it was useful occassionally. It may not be useful for your team.
Retros are hard. Managers will try to run them. People can’t be honest with managers present. At least half an hour of the retro should be without the manager present. Retros should should also be long enough they feel slightly painful. There are people who have a hard time finding their voice in a group setting, especially with difficult topics. Giving them time and opportunity to speak is essential.
- pydry 3y agoRetros are useful. I don't think it's original to scrum though. I think it emerged out of one of those Japanese manufacturing process thingies.
- koonsolo 3y agoRetro's are at the core of agile, since they empower the team to finetune their own process. I don't agree on the manager not being present. The manager must be present in my opinion, but I think you are facing a different problem: Your manager is the 'boss' and not at the service of their team. Try to push your manager to be at the service of your team. If that doesn't work (which most probably is), go work for a manager that actually is at the service of their team.