RETROSPECTIVES
Retrospective is a crucial part of the Scrum process. It allows the team to reflect on the sprint, discussing what went well, what didn’t, and how they can improve.
When the team didn't have good results during the sprint, it's moments is necessary feeling, empathy for talking hard questions. It's can you're finding it challenging to address difficult topics during Retrospectives, especially when results aren't as good as expected.
Here are some tips for conduct a retrospective more productive:
1. Create a Safe Environment: Encourage open and honest communication. Ensure everyone feels safe to speak up without fear of blame.
2. Focus on Improvement, Not Blame: Emphasize that the goal is to learn and improve, not to point fingers.
3. Use Structured Formats: Techniques like "Start, Stop, Continue" can help guide the conversation.
4. Facilitate Empathy: Encourage team members to express empathy and understand each other's perspectives.
领英推荐
" I believe empathy is crucial, especially during difficult moments. When results aren't as expected, it's important to address delicate questions to identify where things went wrong and to develop strategies for future sprints. Empathy plays a key role in these discussions."
When addressing delicate questions and bad results, consider these approaches:
1. Start with Positives: Begin the Retrospective by highlighting what went well. This sets a constructive tone
2. Be Specific, Not Personal: Focus on specific issues or processes rather than individuals. This helps avoid blame and keeps the discussion productive.
3. Ask Open-Ended Questions: "What can we do differently next time?" encourage constructive feedback.
4. Encourage Active Listening: Make sure everyone listens to understand, not just to respond.
By encouraging open communication and regular feedback, teams can continuously improve their processes and workflows. We discuss how our process is improving based the Kaizen list.Kaizen focuses on continuous improvement through small, incremental changes. Using for suggestions Kaizen physical or digital boards where team members can post their suggestions for improvements. Is important encouraging the team to identify and address the root causes of problems, not just the symptoms. The develop and update standard operating procedures to ensure best practices are followed. And establish clear feedback loops so that the effectiveness of implemented changes can be monitored and adjusted as necessary.
In conclusion, fostering a culture of open communication and regular feedback is essential for the continuous improvement of team processes and workflows. Our practice of discussing improvements based on the Kaizen list exemplifies this commitment. By focusing on small, incremental changes, Kaizen empowers team members to actively contribute suggestions through physical or digital boards. This approach not only encourages identifying and addressing the root causes of problems but also ensures that the team does not merely treat symptoms. Additionally, the development and regular updating of standard operating procedures guarantee adherence to best practices. Establishing clear feedback loops allows for the monitoring and necessary adjustment of implemented changes, ensuring ongoing enhancement and efficiency.
Improving the world by improving the people in it
4 个月A pedantic point: the (sprint) review is about WHAT was done by the team, the retro about HOW it was done - more about the team's approach. I'd also argue the purpose is to drive change for the next iteration; sometimes "pinpoint success" isn't that important - and could be misleading as we're celebrating it worked and presuming it'll still continue working. Instead, look at the things that need attention. (also: agile doesn't have "retrospectives", Scrum does...) However... your article expertly identifies the crux of what makes a retro valuable or not: open communication. This will only happen if there is trust within the team, and people feel courageous enough to stand up for their mistakes if the intent is to look forward at different ways, rather than backwards at what went wrong and who is to blame. It should be accepted that we won't know if the proposed change addresses the issues raised or not, but until we give it a go (in the upcoming sprint) we won't know.