[teampractices] Continuous retro
I recently came across the concept of a kanban-style board that serves as an on-going retrospective for a team. Rather than meeting regularly (or per project), a team maintains a board that has columns like "Stop" and "Start" and "Continue" and just looks at it all the time (or when they feel like it, but presumably often), like a working board but for team process only. I like the idea of such a tight feedback loop, but I'm skeptical about this format, too (is it context-switching? Is it as engaging as a face-to-face retro? Will participants feel secure in using it? etc). Does anyone have any experience with doing "continuous retros"? I'd love to hear about it. ___ teampractices mailing list teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
Re: [teampractices] Continuous retro
In my experience using kanban, the "continuous" aspect of many activities doesn't mean it's done continuously but on-demand, instead of on a fixed schedule. For instance, tasks are added to the "to do" column when there is less than X tasks in there instead of being added every Tuesday at 4pm. Similarly, maybe retro items can be added to the retro board as they occur or as people think about them. When there is enough material, a retro meeting can be called for people to discuss them face-to-face. I've never encountered it but I like the idea. On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:25 PM Max Binder wrote: > I recently came across the concept of a kanban-style board that serves as > an on-going retrospective for a team. Rather than meeting regularly (or per > project), a team maintains a board that has columns like "Stop" and "Start" > and "Continue" and just looks at it all the time (or when they feel like > it, but presumably often), like a working board but for team process only. > I like the idea of such a tight feedback loop, but I'm skeptical about this > format, too (is it context-switching? Is it as engaging as a face-to-face > retro? Will participants feel secure in using it? etc). > > Does anyone have any experience with doing "continuous retros"? I'd love > to hear about it. > ___ > teampractices mailing list > teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > -- Stephane Bisson Wikimedia Foundation ___ teampractices mailing list teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
Re: [teampractices] Continuous retro
Thanks for your perspective, Stephane. Some of the teams I currently work with do keep what we call "living documentation" for retros. What that means in practice is that they add topics to a shared document, as the topics occur to them, and then we review them at a regular cadence. If we don't get to all the topics, we either schedule additional time or save the topics for the next cycle. The idea is to A) capture ideas so we don't lose them, and B) use more time in the regular meeting for conversation, instead of idea-generation. Maybe that's the closest we'll get to "continuous"? On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 10:48 AM Stephane Bisson wrote: > In my experience using kanban, the "continuous" aspect of many activities > doesn't mean it's done continuously but on-demand, instead of on a fixed > schedule. For instance, tasks are added to the "to do" column when there is > less than X tasks in there instead of being added every Tuesday at 4pm. > > Similarly, maybe retro items can be added to the retro board as they occur > or as people think about them. When there is enough material, a retro > meeting can be called for people to discuss them face-to-face. I've never > encountered it but I like the idea. > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 1:25 PM Max Binder wrote: > >> I recently came across the concept of a kanban-style board that serves as >> an on-going retrospective for a team. Rather than meeting regularly (or per >> project), a team maintains a board that has columns like "Stop" and "Start" >> and "Continue" and just looks at it all the time (or when they feel like >> it, but presumably often), like a working board but for team process only. >> I like the idea of such a tight feedback loop, but I'm skeptical about this >> format, too (is it context-switching? Is it as engaging as a face-to-face >> retro? Will participants feel secure in using it? etc). >> >> Does anyone have any experience with doing "continuous retros"? I'd love >> to hear about it. >> ___ >> teampractices mailing list >> teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices >> > > > -- > Stephane Bisson > Wikimedia Foundation > ___ > teampractices mailing list > teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices > ___ teampractices mailing list teampractices@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/teampractices
