Purpose: The team defines and commits to what will be built in the next Iteration
Attendees: PO, SM, Agile Team, and invited stakeholders
Facilitator: SM or PO
Preparation:
Team capacity and velocity are established
Team PI Objectives and Features
Candidate's stories for the iteration are READY and prioritized
Meeting's flow
Establish the Team’s capacity and velocity
Revisit all the READY stories/enablers for the Iteration
Discuss how to complete each story/enabler
Load stories into the Iteration until capacity is reached
The team commits to the iteration goals
Recommended practices
Invited Development stakeholders are present
Team capacity and velocity/load are revisited if necessary
DoR and DoD for the sprint are revisited if necessary
Each story/enabler is revisited (description, AC, size, ...) and passes the DoR
Team capacity allocation is established (load allocated for maintenance, refactors, tech debt, or any relevant work item type)
Sub-tasks are created to highlight how to complete a story/enabler when necessary
Stories & enablers planned for the upcoming Iteration respect the team's velocity
Iteration's goals are defined
The team commits to achieving iteration goals
Iteration is started at the end of the meeting
Notes from HCD Observation
Sprint Planning on
Duration: 9:30am - 11:15am
Attendees: Rob, Amy, Meaghan, Chelsea, and Howard.
Notes:
The team closed the sprint today (10/31) since it’s the last day and planning started the same day.
stakeholder was not present
3 stories carried over for the next sprint. Out of 38 stories committed in this sprint 1.
HCD uses story points per day to calculate capacity. Since HCD is planning for the entire month, it is difficult to plan work ahead without estimating the scope of work vs. how many numbers of days takes the team to complete the work. The team estimated 22 story points for the entire month of sprint planning.
During the conversation, the PO is going over capacity and planning, but the team did not look into their backlog to plan priorities.
Some new team members have different opinions on sizing since they are new to the team. (Creator Facilitator Story)
Some stories committed to this new sprint are being pushed to the next sprint. the team is not looking at their backlog during planning, several stories did not look into Acceptance criteria.
PO provides solutions, making it harder to guide the team on the "how" and allowing the team to think about solutions (value desired) on the who, when, how, and why.
Howard seemed unclear on the story assigned to him (comms and marketing) opportunity to better refine and look into DoR/ DoD to ensure the intent of the story is understood/ dependencies addressed prior to committing to the work.
Unknowns on iQIES effort and work since HCD plans work for an entire month. Opportunity to collaborate with LACE/CMS on expectations on the scope of work and stakeholder
A team working agreement is being sent to Rob, eventually, the team should be doing it as an activity all at once coming up with specific agreements as a team and reviewing them.
HCD did an amazing job with its Halloween theme, each sprint has a theme making it fun for the team.
The team uses a confident vote at the beginning to ensure the Sprint Commitments can be achieved.
Daily Stand-up
Foundation
Timebox: 15 mins daily
Purpose: Daily checkpoint to synchronize and collaborate on achieving the Iteration Goals.
Attendees: Agile Team members, SM, PO
Facilitator: SM
Preparation: Updated work management tool or team board
Meeting's flow
Each Agile team member answer the questions:
What did I do yesterday to advance the Iteration Goals?
What will I do today to advance the Iteration Goals?
Are there any impediments that will prevent the team from meeting the Iteration Goals?
Recommended practices
Team member collaborates and synchronizes their work around the board
Alignment across the work until the next business day is created
Risks/impediments blocking the team are surfaced
Potential impacts on cross-depending teams or work items are discussed
Stories/enablers are moved to "Done" when they pass the DoD
Sprint Burndown is shown to assess the progress toward the completion of the sprint goal & commitment
16th minutes topics or follow up actions are agreed
Notes from HCD Observations
DSU on
Attendees: Rob Fay, Meaghan Hudak, Chelsea Brigg, Howard Montgomery, Amy Castellani.
Status report from the team
Several times Scrum Master was interrupted not being empowered for SM to play the role of Scrum Master
Scrum Master shared (16min) parking lot for further discussions
Great conversations about community and HCD and how they can plug into other areas. Artifacts and knowledge sharing, personas development
The parking lot turned into a sharing knowledge session where Chelsea shared the functionality of a new tool with HCD team
No discussion about sprint goals
Metrics were not shared, burn down or progress toward meeting the sprint commitment
Dependencies or blockers seemed a bit unclear.
The waiting column on kanban board doesn't appear to have WIP limits making it difficult to assess blockers or impediments.
Backlog Refinement
Foundation
Timebox: 1-4hrs/2 weeks iteration
Purpose: Provides time to identify dependencies and issues that could impact the next Iteration. Ensures that we have a ready backlog for Iteration planning
Attendees: PO, SM, Agile Team, and invited stakeholders
Facilitator: PO
Preparation: PO sends the list of candidate stories for the next iterations to the Agile Team at least 24h before the meeting
Meeting's flow
The PO presents the set of candidate stories for the next Iteration
The team discusses whether the set of candidate Stories should be reduced or increased; Stories are added or removed
The PO guides the team through the candidate stories one by one:
The team discusses each Story, estimates it, and splits it if necessary
The PO clarifies or supplements the acceptance criteria
The team identifies dependencies on other teams and coordinates with them as appropriate
Action items are summarized for all stories that still require external input or action
Recommended practices
Larger stories are elaborated into small consumable stories (DoR)
Relevant new stories are written by PO & team members
Acceptance Criteria are added/detailed for each story
Stories are sized relatively to the reference stories well known by the team
Each story with its acceptance criteria is discussed between PO & Team in a timebox session
Stories are linked to appropriate DEV team features/stories
Stories are checked against DoR
Enablers are checked against DoR
Refined stories & enablers with acceptance criteria are READY for the next Iteration
Identified dependencies resolved or with action to follow-up
New risks or impediments with the current plan are surfaced
Sprint Backlog is DEEP (Detailed appropriately, Emergent, Estimated, and Prioritized)
Notes from HCD Observation
Observation Date: 9/1/22
Duration: 1hr
Attendees: Rob Fay, Chelsea Brigg, Amy Castellani, Howard Montgomery, Meaghan Hudak, Brandy Barnette
Observations:
The team provided a review and status for existing OKRs. This seemed to be the primary objective of the meeting. Status was provided, and feedback was given to OKR POCs to facilitate continuing actions to achieve KRs.
Good team engagement – Everyone seems invested and willing to contribute feedback
After reviewing OKRs, the team began a walkthrough of Features/Stories. The context for the review was driven by Feature ownership/team members.
This component of the review seemed focused on work in progress (WIP).
The team discussed some general prioritization of planning activities to support the upcoming PI (the next sprint was designated as an IP).
The flow of the meeting aimed to provide a comprehensive review of all team activities, aiming to afford all team members an opportunity to review their work.
Did not get a sense of the overarching backlog for the team. How is work prioritized across team members? Right now, it seems like each team member is POC over their own siloed backlog. What are the inter-relationships between work items and the overarching HCD vision/objectives?
Opportunities:
Meeting activities could be more intentional. The flow/approach to the meeting was more “status” centric rather than used for targeted and detailed refinement of the backlog. The emphasis on providing a comprehensive view of what the team is working on/needs to do, limits the ability to complete a detailed review of a set number of features. This is effectively increasing batch size and reducing throughput for backlog refinement.
Feature/Stories for discussion need to be identified in advance and may need to be only a subset of the total backlog. Start less, and accomplish more for the meetings.
Due to limitations on time vs the volume of items being discussed in the meeting, the team was not able to go into a very detailed review of story writing, acceptance criteria, and sizing.
Sizing did not seem to be a standardized/collective effort. Sizing seemed to be at each team member's discretion for their own items. This may be a team nuance/dynamic, however, if that is the case it may need to be noted/reflected in how velocity/throughput is calculated and communicated to stakeholders. This may make longer-range backlog forecasting more complicated and variable.
The team referenced an upcoming PI Planning event, but the feature refinement ceremony did not seem to maximize the allocated time in preparing and prioritizing features for the upcoming PI. More time can be focused on planning vs statusing to expedite readiness for PI Planning.
Second Observation
Durantion: 1hr
Attendees: Rob Fay, Chelsea Brigg, Amy Castellani, Howard Montgomery, Meaghan Hudak, Brian Flaherty
Notes from Observation:
Rob kicked off the meeting with an overview of priorities and ranking for this PI and explained the current work and changes
The team had cameras on at all times, engaged and ready to participate and provide feedback
A walkthru of the objectives and Key results was given by the PO and each feature owner talked about the current stage of the existing Sprint and share some concerns about completing some work and carrying over stories into next sprint.
Meaghan shared concerns about the newsletter and crunching time getting it out of the door in a Sprint and a half, given some changes in team structure and collaboration with Brian.
The refinement session was aimed at discussing work for the upcoming Sprint, but seemed more like a planning session than a refinement
The team talked about capacity and allocation and projected story points for upcoming sprint planning on Monday.
The stakeholder (Brandy) was not present at the HCD refinement session making it harder for to team to make decisions and clarify priorities
World Usability Day on November 8th seems to be on track and the team is really excited to reach the target 250 people attending this time
Chelsea is behind on goals for training deck development commitment for this sprint. The goal is to deliver this training in December.
For the second half of the refinement session, the team used their Sprint Board and looked at the stories and estimated story points, rather than looking at the overall (features, backlog, and stories) needed in order to meet the business objective and Business Hypothesis.
Some of the stories had both (Benefit Hypothesis and AC's) criteria in the body of work, and one story had a (10) story point estimation which is not Fibonacci. (Seems like the estimation points are relative in days rather than complexity, effort, etc) making it harder to measure and compare work scope and velocity/ metrics.
The HCD team is preparing for any upcoming team changes and how this will affect the 3rd Sprint and there seems to be unknowns from Meaghan/ Brian and Chelsea going on Maternity Leave.
Overall, Rob drives the meeting and each feature owner is called on the stories they will be working on in the upcoming sprint.
Iteration Review
Foundation
Timebox: 1-2 hrs/2 weeks iteration
Purpose: Provides the true measure of progress by showing working product increment
Attendees: PO, SM, Agile Team, and stakeholders invited by the PO
Facilitator: SM or PO
Preparation:
The review is prepared as a team (PO & team) to avoid PPT presentation in favor of demoing in a staging environment. If necessary, consider adding a ticket to the team backlog for review preparation
Agree on the DONE stories/enablers to be demoed, their order of presentation, and the presenter
Meeting Flow
Review business context and Iteration Goals
Demo and solicit feedback on each Story, spike, refactor, NFR
Discuss stories & enablers not completed and why
Identify risks, impediments, and share any insights that could impact a future planning/release
Revise team backlog and Team PI Objectives as needed
Recommended Practices
Invited Business stakeholders are present
The meeting is kick-offed by the PO who presents PI objectives addressed during the iteration with their corresponding iteration goals
Only DONE stories/enablers (passes DoD) are demoed in an environment similar to production if possible or as specified in the DoD
Agile team members are invited to contribute - to demo individual stories/enablers when independent business value
Business stakeholders are engaged: they are invited to provide feedback and share new insights
Remaining PI Objectives, PI scope, potential risks, and trade-off or reprioritization opportunities are discussed
The team's accomplishments are acknowledged by the invited stakeholders
The team is proud of their accomplishments and can celebrate
The team backlog is updated based on feedback and new insights collected
Stories/enablers not completed are moved to the backlog for reprioritization
Notes from HCD Observations
Observation Day
Duration: 1h
Attendees: Meaghan Hudak (SM), Rob Fay, Chelsea Brigg, Amy Castellani, Howard Montgomery, and Brandy Barnette
SM kicked off the meeting by asking who volunteer to demo
All team members demoed one after another
Team member demoed all their work including uncompleted work items
Questions were asked (mainly by 1 participant) and answered, and some dialogues took place between team members
The PO/PM acknowledged the team's accomplishments and provided feedback at the end of the meeting
It was great to see all team members participating in the demo
Opportunities missed:
Kick-off by presenting the PI Objectives or OKRs and team commitments or goals for the Sprint
Present some of the metrics (burndown, CFD, ...) to show how the iteration went
Present insights from the sprint such as challenges, impediments, or blockers
Present all the stories completed that will be demoed
Provide an order for the demo
Lack of PO/PM engagement => more a Demo than a Review!
Great presentations, good team enthusiasm, and energy: Team was proud of the work accomplished!
Iteration Retrospective
Foundation
Timebox: 1-1.5 hrs/2 weeks sprint
Purpose: Opportunity for learning, improving the product quality and team effectiveness by inspecting the current sprint execution (planned vs achieved commitments, values, and goals)
Attendees: Scrum/Agile Team, SM, and ideally PO, to maintain a safe environment for the team. However, other stakeholders can be invited by the team request
Facilitator: SM
Preparation:
The facilitator selects a retrospective technique to address the challenges experienced by the team during the sprint
The facilitator collectsobjective facts: data, metrics, observations
Meeting Flow
Get the participants focus on the activity
Gather the facts from the iteration: Data, metrics, objective observations
Define the problems to be addressed
Understand the root causes of the problems
Find solutions to the problem
Determine an action plan
Recommended Practices
Instill a safe environment for dialogue by sharing the Prime Directive “everyone did his best - no blame” + Las Vegas Rule
Start with an icebreaker to provide focus and outline the goals of the activity
Revisit the actionable improvement plan from last retrospective
Gather the facts from the current iteration (objective observation from team members, team member behaviors, work process, tools, Burndown, Sprint Report, Velocity Chart, CFD, …)
Make groups/clusters of similar statements
Define the core problem by adding problem statements as header on each of the groups
Prioritize the list of problems with, for example, a dot-voting activity
Understand the problem to solve by investigating the root causes with, for example, the 5 WHY, Fishbone Diagram, Pareto Analysis, ...
Find solutions for each root cause
Determine an action plan: Stories are added to the backlog to address the improvement, who is responsible/owner, and how success will be measured
Close out: Recap with highlights and takeaways from the activity
Attendees: Meaghan Hudak (SM), Rob Fay, Chelsea Brigg, Amy Castellani, Brian Flaherty
A team member mentioned extending the retro invite to other external stakeholders for transparency.
The retro is an activity exclusively for the internal team including SM and PO so that team members feel safe enough to engage, speak up, and discuss their opportunities for improvements.
SM did a good job kicking off and explaining the activity and the timebox for collecting the facts from the iteration. (12) mins were allocated for exercise and additional time for dot votes/ grouping
SM could have reminded the team when the timebox is at 50%, and 10% remaining. However, the SM asked if more time is needed near the end of the timebox.
SM did not share the facts from the iteration such as the Burndown Chart, Velocity Chart, or CFD
The status of action items from the last retrospective was not discussed. Are the previous action items in to do, in progress, done?
SM should clarify the criteria before each subsequence activity: for example criteria for grouping or voting before the activity is started. However, it get clarify when a team member asked the question
The tickets were discussed per priority of the vote (tickets with high votes were discussed first). However, there were good discussions but the opportunities to capture the action items were missed. EX: Discussion about confusing guidance from CMS leadership, internal peer-review request => No action items were captured
SM should pay attention to capture the action items in agreement with the team
Low team member engagement: only 2 out of the 4 team members were really engaged in the discussions. Another reason why the retro should remain exclusive to the team.
Team member did not have their cameras on for the majority of the retrospective making it difficult to understand the level of presence in the room.
During the retrospective, the team did a great job identifying areas of improvement such as introducing peer-review processes for feedback loop cycles from other team members and cross-functionality, but as mentioned there were no backlog items and commitment from the team.
Team members shared collaboration with LACE on commercial video, training, and identifying action items for PI Planning
The team discussed areas that are currently working such as World Usability Day which is great. however, the retrospective is an area where the team reflects on "How did we do during this Sprint" Did we meet our goals and objectives?
The team seemed concerned about the prioritization of HCD work and structure. Another reason for working agreements and clarification on DoR, DoD team norms.
The energy in the room was very low, retrospectives are also an opportunity to celebrate success and come out with new "ideas" that can improve the team's morale and collaboration.
ISG Playbook
APIs
