How do you handle testing feedback in scrum vs kanban sprints?

An important additional aspect is the integration of your User Experience Research (UXR) specialists, and the work they do, usually directly with the end user. Of course, a self-organized, empowered team also has UX/UI capabilities on the team, but when collaborating on larger solutions, a dedicated UX/UI component usually exists. It's critical that the test feedback this group generates during its discovery process also finds its way to the development team in a timely manner. "Dual-track" agile is an interesting approach that tries to formalize this process for easy adaptations across many different agile frameworks.

As a QA lead in a Scrum framework, I’ve often seen how testing feedback plays a critical role in shaping the product. In one project, we had a four-week sprint where we integrated automated tests, code reviews, and user acceptance testing from day one. Halfway through, feedback from a stakeholder demo revealed a critical usability issue. While making changes mid-sprint is generally avoided, we logged the feedback, communicated it to the team, and prioritized the fix for the next sprint. This process not only kept the sprint intact but also ensured we delivered a quality product increment. Staying focused yet flexible made all the difference.

Scrum: Address feedback during sprint reviews and retrospectives. Incorporate changes in the next sprint, ensuring improvements are integrated into future cycles. Kanban: Use continuous feedback to make real-time adjustments. Update the board and prioritize tasks based on feedback, adapting processes as needed for ongoing refinement. Both approaches ensure that feedback drives continuous improvement, tailored to the workflow method.

As a QA lead working in a Kanban system, I’ve experienced the fluidity and adaptability that sets it apart from Scrum. On one project, we had a continuous flow of tasks, and testing feedback came in regularly through automated tests and direct user feedback. A key bottleneck surfaced when multiple bugs slowed down development. Unlike Scrum, where changes wait for the next sprint, we adapted immediately, prioritized fixing the issues, and kept the flow moving. Kanban allowed us to be more agile, resolving defects quickly while adjusting to shifting priorities. It’s a flexible approach that ensures faster, more consistent delivery.

One of the key principles of Kanban is to visualize the workflow and make process policies explicit. Therefore, when handling testing feedback, it's essential to have clear visibility into the status of testing tasks on the Kanban board. This allows the team to prioritize testing activities effectively and ensure that feedback is addressed in a timely manner. Additionally, Kanban encourages limiting work in progress (WIP) to maintain a smooth and efficient flow of work. By keeping WIP limits for testing tasks, the team can prevent bottlenecks and ensure that testing feedback is addressed promptly without overwhelming the testing resources.

In my role as a QA lead on a Scrum team, I’ve seen firsthand how testing can drive both success and stress. In one project, the team delivered a robust product increment at the end of each sprint, which boosted customer satisfaction and trust. The collaborative environment among testers, developers, and stakeholders greatly improved the product’s quality. However, the tight sprint deadlines and evolving requirements often created stress and limited our flexibility. Change requests had to wait until the next sprint, testing our discipline and patience. Despite these challenges, the continuous feedback loop helped us consistently enhance our process and product.

In Scrum, testing feedback is addressed within the confines of sprint cycles, where specific user stories or features are developed, tested, and delivered within a predefined time frame. This structured approach offers several benefits, including clear deadlines, focused effort, and predictable delivery schedules. By working in fixed-length iterations, Scrum teams can prioritize testing tasks, identify and address feedback promptly, and deliver incremental value to stakeholders at the end of each sprint. Additionally, the Scrum framework provides opportunities for collaboration and alignment between development and testing teams, fostering a shared understanding of project goals and priorities.

Kanban offers a more flexible approach to handling testing feedback by integrating into the continuous flow of work. In Kanban, there are no fixed sprint cycles, allowing teams to address feedback as soon as it arises, rather than waiting for the next sprint planning session. This flexibility enables teams to adapt to changing priorities and address feedback in real-time, resulting in faster response times & reduced cycle times for resolving issues. Additionally, Kanban provides greater visibility into the status of testing tasks, allowing teams to identify bottlenecks & allocate resources more effectively to address testing feedback promptly. However, the continuous nature of Kanban also presents challenges in managing testing feedback.

In Kanban, testing feedback is handled in a continuous flow manner rather than in predefined sprint intervals. As issues or defects are identified during testing, they are immediately addressed by the development team. The focus is on maintaining a steady flow of work and resolving issues as they arise.

Sprints in Kanban?! it's my first time to hear that!! The question itself is incorrect, but let's say the answer for both techniques is to have a clear understanding of it. Scrum testing is already impeded on the sprint since planning when we plan the effort and the goal of it, to ensure it will be part of our acceptance criteria and definition of done In Kanban, it usually has a quality or testing column to ensure the visibility of the tasks and the flow of handling them during the cycle time "Both mechanisms are designed to ensure the highest quality and confirm success triggers."

Spot on Loay ! Based on my industry exp: Handling testing feedback effectively requires a mindset shift, not just process tweaks. Whether Scrum or Kanban, foster a culture where quality is everyone's responsibility and addressing issues quickly is celebrated. - While certain testing tools align better with specific approaches, the best ones are agile methodology agnostic. Invest in flexible solutions. - Collaboration isn't just meetings, it's co-location (if possible): Can a tester physically sit with devs for a portion of the sprint/cycle? This speeds up the feedback loop immensely. - It's not just about bugs found, but bugs found early, or how quickly feedback was turned into fixes. This shows if your process is truly responsive.

handling testing feedback in Scrum versus Kanban sprints requires careful consideration of the unique characteristics and constraints of each methodology. While Scrum offers structured sprint cycles for focused testing efforts and predictable delivery schedules, Kanban provides flexibility and adaptability for addressing feedback in real-time. By understanding the benefits and challenges of each approach, teams can tailor their testing processes to optimize efficiency, improve product quality, and deliver value to stakeholders effectively.