What is the best way to handle changes to the Definition of Done during a Sprint?

Disagree. If there's a good enough reason to change the DoD, change it now, as soon as we learn it is inadequate. Why would we produce something we already know is sub-standard? Embrace change, even within the sprint. We expect to learn; we expect to change direction based on what we learn. If your processes are so fragile that they cannot cope with the disruption, don't call yourself "agile". Would you really compromise on quality to maintain focus and velocity? That would be a poor decision. I don't think transparency has anything to do with it unless you are over-dependent on documentation. If the greatest waste is doing things that don't need to be done, surely the second is doing things that you know are wrong. Do it right.

In my experience of working with agile methods, i have learned that following the agreed-upon Definition of Done (DoD) is crucial for keeping things stable. However, there are rare situations where unexpected challenges pop up, and we need to make quick adjustments. It is like a skilled team changing their game plan during a match because the opponent threw in some unexpected moves. Flexibility, when used carefully and explained clearly, can be a valuable strategy. It is all about finding the right balance between sticking to the plan and handling the unpredictable parts of projects.

A lot of people think that the DOD is the acceptance criteria for a user story. This is not the case. The DOD is a more general guide that says things like all acceptance criteria for the story are completed, and the story is deployed to a production staging environment.

Changes to the DoD? Why would you ever do that? Also, the DoD should be fairly similar across all tasks unless it is something that is out of the ordinary like setting up a new server. The most prominent mistakes I have seen are usually due to excessive need for human intervention during a deployment which leads to complicated DoD tasks which in turn grinds velocity to a halt

Someone commented that it is okay to change the definition of done mid sprint. I only agree with this if it doesn’t increase the workload and negatively impact the other items in the sprint or negatively impact the people working on it (i.e. cause a dev to work overtime because of poor planning and poorly thought out acceptance criteria from the business). This is an abusive practice that I have seen all too often from clients. Changing the definition of done mid sprint is often a symptom of poorly thought out functionality.

The Sprint Review serves as a pivotal forum for discussing any proposed changes to the Definition of Done. This collaborative environment allows the team to assess the impact of alterations on the current Sprint's work and decide collectively on the way forward. Open discussions during the Sprint Review foster transparency and help the team make informed decisions

During the Sprint Review, changes may occur in the following areas: 1. **Product Backlog:** Based on the review, items may be added, removed, reprioritized, or descriptions updated. 2. **Future Sprints:** Insights from the current sprint may influence planning for future sprints. 3. **Stakeholder Feedback:** Feedback can lead to changes in requirements or priorities. 4. **Process Improvements:** The team may identify changes to improve efficiency or quality. The Sprint Review is a key opportunity for iterative improvement.

The Sprint Retrospective is the retrospective mirror, reflecting on what worked well and what could be improved. If changes to the Definition of Done are deemed necessary, the retrospective provides an ideal space to discuss and formalize these adjustments. It's an opportunity for the team to learn from the Sprint and make continuous improvements.

Sprint retrospective is a critical activity for collecting feedback and collaboratively identifying pain points within a team during a sprint. It serves as a platform to not only enhance the definition of done for specific stories but also to foster teamwork for better overall project outcomes. This includes improving team velocity, refining processes, delivering higher-quality features, and effectively addressing defects. The flexibility of modifying the definition of done allows the team to adjust and align with its processes, ensuring progress toward specific goals and successful project delivery.

Communication with the Product Owner about changes can be managed effectively through: 1. **Regular Meetings:** Discuss changes and impacts on the product/backlog. 2. **Email Updates:** Send clear, concise updates outlining changes and implications. 3. **Documentation:** Update and share relevant documentation reflecting changes. 4. **Collaboration Tools:** Use tools like Slack or Microsoft Teams for quick updates. 5. **Sprint Review Meetings:** Discuss changes made during the sprint and gather feedback. Maintain transparency and regular communication for successful change management.

Since the DoD definitions are in effect "Quality Requirements" the Product Owner should be party to any decision, rather than informed after it has taken place. I would question your understanding of roles and responsibilities if you think the PO is not someone to be involved in the decisions.

Different people are talking about different things here. Our team, for example, very rarely changes Definition of Done; it is a fixed checklist. However Acceptance Criteria are different for each backlog item, and often aren't discovered until within the sprint (we deliberately defer until then!). So our DoD has a clause "All relevant acceptance tests pass". If you disagree with what people say about DoD, you might just be working to different definitions, but underneath, agreeing with each other.

The very best thing about Agile is the raw definition of Agile, flexible. Nothing is set in stone, we do what's right in the moment and pivot when necessary. Every sprint needs room for this...the unknown and the adaption may be that we break a ticket into multiple tickets because we have competing needs from the business. On small teams the goal of Agile and Scrum shouldn't be to complete all the work in the sprint, but to produce quality in the sprint that doesn't add to the pile of work because a pile that has more additions than completions eventually topples over. The goal is not to increase the number of tickets we complete, but to have such high quality when we do complete tickets that the business trusts our work product!