• 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

1. The PO presents the set of candidate stories for the next Iteration
2. The team discusses whether the set of candidate Stories should be reduced or increased; Stories are added or removed
3. The PO guides the team through the candidate stories one by one:
   1. The team discusses each Story, estimates it, and splits it if necessary
   2. The PO clarifies or supplements the acceptance criteria
   3. The team identifies dependencies on other teams and coordinates with them as appropriate
4. Action items are summarized for all stories that still require external input or action

• 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)

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.