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!