...
Meeting length: | Up to 15 mins (any chat going over 30-60 secs per ticket / per person should usually be parked for those doing the chatting till after the stand up - rarely will such chat involve everyone) |
Who leads: | The team lead stand up. The In pure Scrum, the Product Manager and Delivery Manager are technically meant to be silent observers - listening to how the team are making progress. Others can also be invited to attend stand ups. Again, as silent observers. In our evolved and iterated version of Scrumban, where we have moved to Product team working and want to offer more transparency on everything we do, for this Agile event the PM and DM are members of the team, and therefore active participants - especially on the tickets with their name on the cards. |
Review
Some teams call this event a “Show and tell”. And we do “Show” and “Tell” what we’ve done (cross reference Definition(s) of Done. But that’s only part of what this event is for… The 3 pillars of Scrum are Transparency, Inspection and Adaptation. Showing and telling only addresses the first of those pillars. It’s called a “Review” because it is primarily an opportunity for the team to invite stakeholders to give the team their feedback on the work that the team has done in the iteration and their plans for the coming one. This is the Inspection aspect. It is designed to be a highly engaging session, full of two-way communication. And it is meant to be transparent - highlighting any problems encountered and how those problems were handled and how the team has tried to mitigate them happening again. It is not designed to be a one-way, ‘Here’s what we’ve done' status report. Any Review that feels more like this kind of an event is an indication that the team think that they have all the answers (lack of intellectual humility), and that stakeholder feedback and advice is irrelevant (not embodying User-Centred Design). A true Agile anti-pattern. | This helps with:
|
...
The purpose is to:
| |
An example Coggle mindmap, for:
| |
High-level estimation addresses the challenge of how to effectively convey the ‘uncertainty’ when predicting effort (that stakeholders want to understanding in terms of ‘time’ so that they can plan their activities around when we think we’ll complete something) for Epics. | |
A way of visualising the results of what the team estimate at the end. The team are communicating to stakeholders confidence levels of 60-100%. This example shows the team estimating between 7-13 iterations to complete the work. If stakeholders plan for the work completing in 7 iterations, they need to be clear that they have taken on considerable risk that it won’t, or that they will only be getting the highest priority elements at that point (and the rest will follow on after that). |
...