Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
how_do_we_get_away_from_business_as_usual_thinking_on_teams [2019/01/22 18:54]
Hans Samios
how_do_we_get_away_from_business_as_usual_thinking_on_teams [2019/08/20 08:26] (current)
Hans Samios Added proactive term. Added engagement benefit reported from coaches
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 ====== Premise ====== ====== Premise ======
 +
 +Or “How do we have a proactive (as opposed to reactive) retrospective?​”
  
 Or “How do we increase the effectiveness of the Retrospective?​” Or “How do we increase the effectiveness of the Retrospective?​”
 +
 +Or "How do we stop fluffy retrospectives?"​
  
 We’ve kicked off the Teams (and Trains) in their new alignment with the expectation that they will work to improve the flow of value based on the value streams identified. Instead, what we find is that in an effort to get control of the work, the Teams stay very much in a “business as usual” mode. Some of this is caused by falling back into old habits (“I know how to do this work in the ticketing system”). Some of this is caused by a lack of direction from leadership (“We don’t have the Features coming in to the Teams that reflect the new, expected work”, or “We have not talked about how much capacity we want to be allocated to new work versus the ticketing system and what the leadership is going to do to help protect the Teams from using more of their capacity for ticketing items”). We’ve kicked off the Teams (and Trains) in their new alignment with the expectation that they will work to improve the flow of value based on the value streams identified. Instead, what we find is that in an effort to get control of the work, the Teams stay very much in a “business as usual” mode. Some of this is caused by falling back into old habits (“I know how to do this work in the ticketing system”). Some of this is caused by a lack of direction from leadership (“We don’t have the Features coming in to the Teams that reflect the new, expected work”, or “We have not talked about how much capacity we want to be allocated to new work versus the ticketing system and what the leadership is going to do to help protect the Teams from using more of their capacity for ticketing items”).
Line 36: Line 40:
  
 In many ways, this thinking approach is really about increasingly seeing the whole system, seeing the Team’s part in that system, and seeing where the problems and impediments are. Once we have identified the problems, the usual Retrospective steps apply - root cause analysis, ideas to address, plan of action (including backlog items and experiment),​ then review results at next Retrospective. In many ways, this thinking approach is really about increasingly seeing the whole system, seeing the Team’s part in that system, and seeing where the problems and impediments are. Once we have identified the problems, the usual Retrospective steps apply - root cause analysis, ideas to address, plan of action (including backlog items and experiment),​ then review results at next Retrospective.
 +
 +As a side note, Teams that do this kind of retrospective will report that there is a big increase in the level of discussion and engagement from Team Members as they discuss what might be. And so while you might not do this type of retrospective every time, it can be used to really re-engage the Team in improving how they work.
 +
 ====== Supporting Significant Change ====== ====== Supporting Significant Change ======
  
  • /home/hpsamios/hanssamios.com/dokuwiki/data/attic/how_do_we_get_away_from_business_as_usual_thinking_on_teams.1548212090.txt.gz
  • Last modified: 2019/01/22 18:54
  • by Hans Samios