Project Management Central
|
Please login or join to subscribe to this thread
|
||||
|
||||
Deniz -
1. If your sponsor is representing the user interests and has specific ideas about the product, they should be present at the sprint review. If they can't make the formal sprint review, then as you said, having them drop by casually to see the "latest build" is a stop gap measure but might not get the same quality of feedback. Would it be possible to shift the start and end dates for sprints so they can attend at the end of a sprint? If their participation is not for feedback purposes, then I'd suggest a separate "showcase" 1:1 meeting between the sponsor and someone on the team where they'd be walked through the progress made on the product or better yet, give them access to the product so they can do so for themselves... 2. It is generally advisable to have retros after reviews so you can study the data (e.g. feedback, product performance) from the review as an input into the discussions. If not, then having a quick team huddle after the review to see if there's any changes to the improvement experiments identified in the retro might be one way to compensate. Kiron
You answer yourself: it has no sense. If you need the sponsor to be present and it is not then the product owner (or the name you give to the person who is the voice of customer, because product owner is a role name associated with Scrum which is not right) is accountable for getting them aware. Ownership is the key thing if you use agile. That´s not matter the position in the initiative or the company the sponsor must take ownership. With that said remember that you can use lot of techniques to run retrospectives. You do not need people present to run a retrospective.
|
||||
Please login or join to reply
ADVERTISEMENTS
|
"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head." - Sally Kempton |
