Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by erikstarck | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

erikstarck

This.

That is why the retrospective meeting is at the heart of agile. A truly "agile light" setup would be:

Every other week, do a retrospective.

That's it!

On the retro, ask yourself 3 questions (or work with these 3 themes):

1. Is the way we are working helping us, and the rest of the organization, make the right decisions and reach our goals in an efficient way? If not, what needs to change?

2. Is our understanding of the customer (or whatever system we are trying to improve) correct or are we basing our decisions on the wrong assumptions? If so, what do we need to learn?

3. Do we have a clear picture of where we are going and what we want to achieve and how that is aligned with the goals of the organization? If not, how do we course correct or make our progress towards our goals clearer?

There you have it: the retrospective and the 3 dimensions of agile.

View on HN

I would say that retrospectives are the biggest waste in agile in my experience.

For one thing, retrospectives often come at a time when everyone has been busting ass for a long time and they just want to go home. If you put it off till next week then it seems like another distraction.

Like the planning meetings, the timebox for a retrospective is often wrong. In some cases things went smoothly and there is a little to say. That is where you should be. In some places you budgeted 45 minutes but there really is a day worth of material.

On top of that in many (most?) firms there is no sense of psychological safety. Often the real message is that the process is 99% bull but you can't say that in a meeting which is claimed to be about continuous improvement but is really about how to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

In his book "Good to Great", Jim Collins points out the use of the word "alignment" is a bad smell. In a healthy organization there is alignment, naturally, built into it. If you feel like you have to paint alignment onto it after the fact you are just causing more misalignment.

That was a very good list of things that would typically come up in a healthy retrospective. But, yes, there has to be psychological safety first.

In some cases things went smoothly and there is a little to say.

Has been my experience (on good teams.) After a while, you tend to gel pretty well and don't need to spend that much time introspecting. The issues raised are either generally intractable organizational problems (that'll never get fixed), or fairly minor, and on several teams I noticed that retrospectives tended to feel pretty similar after a while (To the credit of the team, at that point we were like "we probably don't need retrospectives every sprint.")

> when everyone has been busting ass for a long time and they just want to go home

This sounds like a smell. You should not be busting ass and have everyone feel like they just want to go home at the end of the sprint. You should be working productively every day without burning out. Perhaps the team is forced to make too many commitments? Kind of sounds like it from your other comments.

Judging by my retros, I think other dev teams trying this will rapidly find that the answer to all 3 questions can be “no, but there’s nothing we can do about it!” Past a certain company size/amount of bureaucracy, simple agile seems nigh-on impossible.

Good points. I would rather have these answered in planning, rather than a retrospective. If these questions need to be asked after every week of work, that's a sign that the retrospectives are not helping much.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com