Tag: Sprint planning

Myth about creating multiple Sprint Backlogs before first sprint starts

Some teams treat the Sprint Backlog as just a smaller version of the bigger plan (Product Backlog) and start creating baselined Sprint Backlogs for multiple future Sprints. Is this rught way – read on to discover

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Some teams treat the Sprint Backlog as just a smaller version of the bigger plan (Product Backlog) and start creating baselined Sprint Backlogs for multiple future Sprints. The negative implication of this practice is that the “Inspect and Adapt” cannot happen. This becomes just disguising the waterfall and calling it Scrum.

Recommendations

  • There should only be one Sprint Backlog. This represents the forecast for the current Sprint. At the end of the Sprint, the Sprint Backlog is emptied. All remaining items are taken back to the Product Backlog. All completed and done items are taken into Increment. The reason why this is done this way is to give opportunity to the Product Backlog to be re-ordered if needed.
  • It is possible that the Product Backlog item changes the order since there might be change of business priorities. If the Sprint Backlog is baselined for multiple sprints at the start then an important opportunity for inspection and adaptation is lost.
  • The discussions in the Sprint Planning result into a new Sprint Backlog based on the business objective to be achieved this Sprint. Even during the sprint, the Sprint Backlog emerges – more details get added and new things get clarified.

This article is re-published on WORLD OF AGILE website –https://worldofagile.com/blog/myth-about-creating-multiple-sprint-backlogs-before-first-sprint-starts/

Myth about Sprint Planning consisting of three parts Part1, Part2, Part3 vs Topic1, Topic2, Topic3

Many teams imagine Sprint planning as 3 parts being done serially – one after another. However that reduces the collaboration among teams – Let us understand why

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Most teams implement Sprint Planning as three parts – Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. The Product Owner comes in part 1 and 2, helps with setup of the Sprint Goal (WHY) selection of functionality (WHAT) and then the Developers sits and thinks over the technical (HOW) during the Part 2 of the sprint planning. The implication of this is that PO then does not get involved in the detailing and the road-blocks that team faces and technical feasibility problems that result during the Part 3 becomes a back-and-forth discussion between PO and Developers. This obviously results in a loss of productivity.

Recommendations

  • The whole Sprint Planning process is an iterative, incremental and collaborative process and therefore there are three Topics and not three Parts to the meeting.
  • First topic – WHY – is the business objective
  • Second topic – WHAT – is the selection of the Product Backlog Items which may help achieve the goal. So, it is forecasting what items should be part of this Sprint.
  • Third Topic – HOW – is the discussion of details and feasibility of the items and the help required from Scrum Master or Product Owner to get this done.
  • So, you can consider the WHAT and HOW are iterative in nature where the HOW revolves around the WHAT and joint discussions are necessary. There are possible considerations that may happen to the WHAT because of the HOW. Technicalities do influence to a large extent on WHAT can be done and what cannot.
  • The Sprint Planning Event can end with a decision on THE WHY – Sprint Goal, a forecast of WHAT needs to be done and the HOW for at-least a few things to be done over the next few days. However, the Sprint Planning PROCESS does not end with Sprint Planning EVENT. The Product Owner and Developers keep doing the discussion on the two topics – WHAT and HOW throughout the Sprint. Many-a-times, the teams do these detailed discussions on the HOW for the WHATs after daily scrums on the plan for next 24-48 hours.

So, my recommendation is not to call the Sprint Planning as Part1, Part2 and Part3 but iterative, incremental and collaborative process of Topic1, Topic2 and Topic3 which starts with Sprint Planning and continues throughout the Sprint.

This article is re-published on WORLD OF AGILE website –https://worldofagile.com/blog/myth-about-sprint-planning-consisting-of-three-parts-part1-part2-part3-vs-topic1-topic2-topic3/

Myth about Sprint Backlog being a commitment

Common Misconceptions and negative implications

Most leadership and product owners feel that Developers has to commit to a scope during the Sprint Planning. That is, most leadership try to implement the concept of “baseline scope” for the Sprint.

  • By doing this, it prevents opportunities for inspection and adaptation during the sprint.
  • Team gets “locked” into delivering baselined scope instead of trying to find out if they are going in the right direction or wrong.
  • Critical opportunity to inspect and adapt is then lost and deviation is detected during the Sprint Review.
  • Then starts the discussions on “change requests”, “sign offs”, “not being able to give scope properly”When the Developers yields to pressure of delivering baselined scope, the team comes under pressure and naturally working hours increase. More dissatisfaction results.

Recommendations

  • At the time of Sprint Planning meeting make only a forecast instead of commitment. One should have an openness to change if the need be instead of making the team commit.
  • Adapting quickly helps one get more closer to what is required to be done really.
  • Once an attitude develops with the team that “we are adaptable” and “not everything needs to be done as per forecast” teams become more receptive to the change.
  • Sprint Backlog always evolves – and let it evolve. The whole point why we are doing Scrum is because of the “unknown” nature of the work.
  • The reason the teams are reluctant to accept changes in the Sprint Backlog is because they are asked to work late and deliver the commitment and at the same time accept all last-minute changes. One must remember that there is always a cost of the change. However, the cost of the change is taken in terms of a Scope compromise in Scrum. That means if the Sprint backlog changes, something in the Sprint Backlog may have to be pushed to the next sprint or later.
  • One must remember that while the Sprint Backlog evolves, does not mean we are random and chaotic in our way of work. We are handling changes. We are not in Chaos. That means, if the changes are big, and big changes are happening frequently then it is time to either look at how we are gathering our requirements or if the Sprint Lengths are to be shortened.

This article is re-published on WORLD OF AGILE website – https://worldofagile.com/blog/myth-about-sprint-backlog-being-a-commitment/