This is blogpost III on work retrospectives.
At one of my clients, we are doing one week sprints. Changing the way a team works every week, sometimes feels overkill. People want to see the effects of what they have. For this we have decided to also try another kind of work retrospective.
A discussion workshop.
We don’t plan any actions in this one. We discuss some common statements. Actually common statement about agile that have been personalized for this team.
This was the format:
mad, glad, sad, afraid
B) Discussion workshop
B.1 5 minutes explaining six different statements
we learn enough
it’s better to finish then to start
it’s important to be predictable
the quality of our work is excellent
in our team, we tell eachother everything
retrospectives are very useful
B.2 5 minutes silent sorting the statements: done by the full team, without SM or PO.
B.3 Divide team + SM + PO in two groups.
B.4 Take first statement
B.4.1 5 minutes of finding arguments
group nr 1: finding arguments why the statement is true
group nr 2: finding arguments why the statement is false
B.4.2 Change groups (one person stays behind)
B.4.3 5 minutes of finding arguments
Group nr3 : finding arguments why the statement is true
Group nr 4: finding arguments why the statement is false
B.4.4 select your prefered position for this discussion. (might be the opposite of what you think yourself)
B.4.5 10 minutes of group discussion
B.5 second statement
repeat steps of B.4
Yves why do you still call this a retrospective, isn’t this just a workshop, training exercise?
Good question. I think it’s in between. We did this at the moment of a retrospective. We started by a check in that was very much related to the last sprint.
Second, as this is not yet a mature team, discussions are an important part of creating the team.
Discussions about more generic topics, instead of full force on hot issues in the team are more safe. So for me, it’s is part of improving the team. The big difference is that the improvement happen as part of the retro, that is why I put this inside my series of work retrospective.
Yves what is lacking, is a real conclusion/next step/action based on this exercice.
True. For the public version we want to play at conferences, we will experiment with an audience voting on who was the best debater.
Do you have a better idea how we could add a next step to this?