Agile and Scrum Videos

Watch Mountain Goat Software videos on agile, Scrum, product ownership, estimation, planning, and teamwork.

All Videos

The Real Cost of Inaccurate Agile Plans

Transcript

Bad plans lead to many well-known problems.
Teams deliver later than expected, or the budget is blown by adding people in the hope that will help.
Sometimes a deadline is met but by dropping important features.
Or the deadline met by team members working overtime, causing burnout, frustration, and usually introducing bugs.
Inaccurate plans frustrate both team members and stakeholders, but one of the worst impacts is the team loses credibility with its stakeholders.
I've got a friend whom I'll occasionally meet for lunch.
He's always 5 to 10 minutes late.
If he emails me today and suggests meeting at noon, I'm going to arrive five minutes late myself.
I no longer trust him to be on time.
It's just lunch, so who cares?
But the problem is much worse on projects.
Consider a team that is either consistently late or always has to drop scope to meet a deadline.
The team is now asked if they can deliver a new project in three months.
Team members think about it and decide they cannot deliver it in 3 months, but could in 4 months!
When they tell stakeholders they need an extra month, the stakeholders don't believe them.
And why should they?
The team has been consistently wrong on all prior projects.
At this point, stakeholders may tell the team to do it in three months anyway.
Why not?
the Team never meets its deadlines.
So, Stakeholders may reason that they'll stick with the three-month deadline, but quietly expect it, in perhaps four months.
What's critical here is that stakeholders will not treat the team as an equal partner.
Consider how things might have played out differently if the teams had established a track record of providing decent plans.
Not perfect, just decent.
When that team tells stakeholders a project will take an extra month, stakeholders are likely to engage in a conversation about options.
Stakeholders and the team would discuss ways to meet the desired earlier deadline.
For example, would it help to enlarge the theme?
Is there a feature or two that could be dropped or deferred?
Would it helped if team members were allowed to focus solely on this product instead of also supporting some old product?
When a team has a track record of presenting reasonably accurate plans, they will be treated as equal partners by the rest of the organization.
Many teams try to solve the problem of inaccurate plans by padding their next plans.
This usually makes things worse, as the team now has two things to estimate.
The plan and how much to pad the plan.
When stakeholders call the team on padding a plan, the padding is often removed unless team members can present solid logic and evidence for the size of
the patting.
A better solution would be for team member to assess why their plans have consistently been wrong.
Sometimes the problem is with the estimates themselves.
If that's the case, there are many things team members can do.
I'll share just one technique right now.
It's called unpacking.
Unpacking involves identifying all the subparts of some work to be done.
''I need to do my laundry today.'' I can unpack doing my washing to wash, dry, and put away the clothes.
if needed, I could unpack put-away into fold some items and hang some others.
Agile teams can unpack large product backlog items into smaller product-backlog items, and they can pack small product backlogs into the tasks they'll
perform to complete that item.
Having split work into small pieces, most teams will next estimate those smaller pieces.
However, research by Magda Jorgensen has shown that estimating small things and then summing those estimates can lead to worse estimates.
So instead of estiming the smaller pieces, unpacking involves identifying the components of the work, but then estimating the original larger item.
Research by Kruger and Evans has shown that unpacking items this way will lead to larger estimates.
For teams who chronically underestimate, this is a valuable and easy way to get better estimates I've added references to these two important papers in
the description.
Unpacking is one of many ways a team can improve its estimates But some teams actually estimate most items fairly well, but still deliver late.
How can this be?
One reason is when a team fails to account for what I call the Unknown Backlog.
The Unknown backlog contains all the work that a Team will need to do, but that hasn't been identified yet.
Part of the unknown backlog is just things the Team hasn' t thought about yet, every Team overlooks something.
Beyond things a Teams overlook, there are also emergent requirements.
These are needs that emerge through the process of building the product.
Stakeholders are shown a preliminary version and that gives them new ideas.
In many cases, those new idea become must-have features.
It would be impossible for a team to make a list of everything they've overlooked or that will emerge.
These items are, by definition, unknown.
However, there are techniques a Team can use to roughly estimate the size of the unknown backlog.
A simple approach is to ask Team members to estimate how much they think they currently know about the product they'll ultimately deliver.
Suppose a team has a set of really good detailed discussions with stakeholders.
It's clear that stakeholders hold a crisp vision of what they want, and stakeholders have answers for most of the team's questions.
Following these discussions, team members feel they have a good understanding of But team members also know there will be some misunderstandings and that
stakeholders will inevitably come up with new ideas that they'll insist be included.
Team members in this situation may reason that see about 80% of the ultimate solution.
That means the product backlog is 80 percent of full size of backlog.
The unknown backlog the other 20 percent.
Team members don't know what will be on the unknown backlog, but they can estimate an approximate size for it.
And they could use this to better scope the full size of the project.
By including an adjustment for the unknown backlog, a team can greatly improve the accuracy of its plans, even if the adjustment is a very rough approximation.
Not all teams need to plan.
Some teams are simply instructed to deliver new capabilities to achieve outcomes as quickly as possible.
In the majority of organizations, however, some degree of predictability is important.
This may be to enable coordination with partners, to train users to coordinate marketing efforts, or more.
In a private company, plans feature prominently in the company's ability to acquire funding.
And in a public company plans influence guidance given to shareholders and investors.
For physical products, plan influence manufacturing and shipping commitments.
If creating reliable plans stakeholders can trust is important to you, consider participating in one of our accurate agile planning courses.
This course is designed to help teams produce accurate estimates and plans, including on fixed date and fixed scope projects.
I teach these courses online publicly a few times a year and can also teach a private course for your organization.I've put links in the description.
Thank you for watching and I'll see you next time.

The Secret to Avoiding the 90% Done Syndrome

Transcript

There's a lot of talk out there about the need to split or slice user and job stories.
But why is this so important?
What's wrong with big stories?
Do all stories need be small?
The answer may surprise you.
So let's dig in, starting with why splitting stories is so.
On the surface, teams split user stories so that a story will fit into the iteration.
While this is true, it just raises the question of why work needs to fit in to an iteration?
When work items are small, specifically small enough to fit within an iteration, it's easy for team members to say whether they finished each item.
Assessing progress becomes easy.
Each product backlog item is either not started or it is done.
We're really good at knowing when we haven't started something, and we're pretty good when knowing we are done, we suck everywhere in between.
A programmer once told me he was 80% done with something.
Feeling a little playful, but with a very serious expression, I told him it seemed more like he was 78% done.
He said, yeah, could be.
But he had no idea if he 80% or 78%. He probably felt mostly done and turned that feeling into a number.
don't play the percentage done game.
When teams split large stories into ones that are small enough to fit into their sprints or iterations, they avoid playing this game,
every story can be considered not started or done.
This is important because teams deceive themselves about progress.
We think we're more done than we are.
There's a joke in the software industry that says software projects are 90% done for 90 percent of their schedules.
The reason, then, for splitting stories is that it helps a team gauge its progress.
There are additional advantages to working with small stories.
With small Stories, a Team can get earlier feedback.
This allows for course adjustments if the Team finds it's not building exactly what users want.
Small stories can also improve team morale.
Finishing something, even a small thing, is more satisfying than being partially done with a large thing.
Harvard professor Teresa Imabile named this the progress principle.
Does this mean there's no role for big stories?
Absolutely not.
A typical good product backlog will contain some large stories, which are too big to fit into an iteration.
These larger stories represent work that will be done soon.
So they're worth having on the product back log, but they won't be in the next sprint or two, so they are not worth splitting yet into small stories.
Leaving these stories big saves the team the effort of splitting them now.
Time spent splitting would be wasted if priorities shift and the work is deferred or no longer needed.
Stories should be split as close as possible to when they'll be worked on.
Large stories also help a team manage dependencies.
Most dependencies are between the substories of a larger story.
If a team is building a word processor, there will be a lot of dependencies among the stories about its spell checker.
There shouldn't be many dependencies between this spell-checker and the subscription management stories, though.
When you leave a story big until you're ready to work on it, these dependencies exist within the larger-story.
No one needs to spend time or energy thinking about those dependencies until the big story is split into smaller stories.
I've got something that's going to teach you exactly how small your story should be.
How to successfully and quickly write a product backlog for the next version of a project.
And how to avoid getting bogged down by team members who want endless amounts of detail.
Watch the video here or in the description to learn more.

The Shift Toward Human-Centered Agile (Thanksgiving Reflections 2025)

Transcript

Welcome in Agile Mentors!
We're here for another episode of the Agilementors Podcast.
As I always say, I'm here with you as always, Brian Milner, and today it's just me because this has kind of been tradition now.
We've done this two or three years in a row since we've been doing the podcast and I really like this tradition.
It's the time of year when we say that we're grateful for things.
Here in the US, we have a Thanksgiving holiday that will be shortly after this episode releases.
So we're going to do something a little bit different.
We're not going give you a full interview episode with anyone else.
I just wanted to kind of just really briefly highlight, as I traditionally do in this message, a couple things that I'm thankful for.
A time of change for a lot of people.
It's a time that maybe that change is more painful for you than others I know.
So there's lot to kind of maybe taking a moment just to pause and say, well, even with all those things, what are the things that I'm really thankful that's
I have right now that are kind going this way?
So I want to start by just saying one of the things I'm grateful for is sort of this shift I've seen in the agile community towards more of a human centered
kind of approach to agility.
This year just felt different in that way.
There was more people talking about humans.
you know, instead of tools seem like in conversations.
Teams named the real stuff, safety, burnout, stress, hope.
I was hearing these kinds of questions in classes.
There was a lot more focus on things like psychological safety which is really, really important.
And I think that really matters.
Maybe it's just my own kind of view of the world, but I have seen sort of a shift in conversation.
And I think that's a good thing.
I don't know, you know if it's just a recognition or maybe AI is driving some of that because it can't do that very well.
But for whatever reason, I that that is a positive thing and I thing that will continue to be a thing for us here.
One of the other things I'm really grateful for that I all too often neglect to say is the people that help with this show that are kind of behind the scenes.
one is to thank the one and only sponsor this podcast has ever had, Mountain Good Software.
Mike Cohn and the whole crew there.
We don't have ads for hair growth products or, you know, I don' know.
All the weird things you hear on other podcasts, everything that you're going to hear here, even if it's an ad, is going be agile related and it is only
going come from Mountain Coast.
So I really appreciate them, you know, investing in this and continuing to invest in it.
I believe it's a really worthwhile venture.
And, and if you're listening, I'm sure that you do as well.
So, um, very thankful that we have that strong support for mountain goat software.
Um, thankful for specific help that, that it kind of falls into this as, as.
Well, so I say this in classes sometimes, but I don't say it enough here on the podcast.
My, my partner in helping me through this is, uh, Uh, a wonderful woman named Laura Kendrick.
So Laura, I'm sure we'll listen to this and just want to say my thanks to all of the work and the effort that she puts into this.
She does so much behind the scenes, helped me with the scheduling and getting guests on and handling the, the.
files going back and forth to all the various places.
It's a lot of work.
Now that we launched these on YouTube as well, it seems like it's even more work, so I just want to call out her as she is a foundational part of this
podcast and has been from day one.
So Laura, my huge thanks to you for all your help through this.
And I also want to say that I'm thankful that's kind of the word that has stuck with me this year more than any other is the Word Evolve.
And, I am thankful for the permission to evolve.
Just personally, professionally, having the opportunity to grow and change and evolve my thinking, evolve, my practices.
You know, there's new projects, new risks, and new directions.
New experiments and that all feeds into that evolution.
I feel like I've learned this year more than any other year that just staying static is deadly and we either are going to evolve ourselves or we're going
evolve what we do.
as Agile practitioners, or we're going to suffer what I've termed systems entropy, just kind of the slow backwards degrading slide towards messiness and
disorganization that can occur when there's no new energy added to what you do.
experimentation, ongoing discovery and learning.
That's that energy.
I appreciate that you as listeners have given us the permission here to experiment a little, to go on some different areas as we go through the podcast
and try some things.
We tried a takeover here for a bit of the show even and just like to continue to do that.
we want to try to experiment with things.
So don't expect that to stop.
We'll experiment some new formats and new ideas.
Always in search of trying to make this the best use of your time.
Just three things there I wanted to highlight really quickly and encourage you to do the same.
Take five, 10 minutes just at the start of the day or at end of day, whichever kind of fits better with your personality type.
Sit down and just say, I'm gonna take five minutes here and I just wanna write down three thing.
What are three things that this year, when I look back over everything that's happened so far as we race toward the end of 2025, what are the three thing
that I'm really thankful for?
And as always, even outside those big three, I have to say I'm thankful for all of you.
Thank you for continuing to listen.
That's it for this week.
Just a short little Thanksgiving message, and I hope you have a wonderful, blessed time with your family and your friends over this holiday season.
And we'll see you next week on another new episode of the Agile Mentors Podcast.

The Sprint Goal: What It Is and How It Can Help You

Transcript

What's a Sprint Goal?
It's one sentence summary of the focus of a sprint.
Think about the sprint goal this way.
Suppose you get in the office elevator, push the button to go to your floor, and your boss's boss, not just your Boss, but your bosses boss comes running
up to the elevator and yells, hold the Elevator.
Your bosses Boss gets in elevator with you and says, hey, what are you working on this sprint?
Very friendly, just wants to know what you're working in this Sprints.
I don't know about you, but anytime I've had a conversation with my boss's boss, I had one goal, get out of that conversation as quickly as possible.
It's dangerous talking to the boss' boss.
So when the bosses' bosses says, Mike, what are you working on this sprint?
I'm nervous.
I didn't want to tell my bosses boss everything in the sprint backlog.
Well, we're adding a field to database and I am going to write justify the dollar column on a report.
This is way too much detail.
The boss's boss does not want to hear my sprint backlog.
the boss' boss probably doesn't even want a list of all the user stories or job stories the team selected for the sprint.
That's also too many details.
What the Boss' Boss is looking for is a one sentence summary of what the Team is trying to get done in the Sprint.
So if the boss's boss asks me what we're working on, I should say something like, this sprint, we are implementing the basic shopping cart functionality,
including add, remove, and update quantities.
That's a sprint goal.
Next sprint when the bosses boss asked me, what were working, on I'm going to say, well, were we working trying to finish the checkout process,
pay for an order, pick shipping method, order gift wrapping, things like that.
Notice these things are related.
They're all in the shopping cart or checkout area of the system.
Teams tend to have a gradual migration through an area the product.
they don't usually work in one area and then a totally different area in next sprint and back to the first area.
From sprint to sprint, the work tends to be related And you can see how they've kind of evolved through parts of the system.
So a sprint goal is meant to be a one-sentence summary that helps those outside the Scrum team understand what the team is trying to accomplish in the sprint.
We do this because it provides greater context for the work being undertaken, and it helps stakeholders understand why they're being asked to participate
in a Sprint Review.
That means a sprint goal is good to include in your email inviting people to the sprint review.
Sharing the spring goal then helps stakeholders know if they should attend.
One more thing I want to share about sprint goals is that some teams write horrible sprint goal.
It's not really their fault.
Think about working on a team that is working six or seven completely unrelated things.
I'll see this a fair amount in digital agencies, for example.
A team in that situation may do work for five or six different clients in a sprint.
One client might need a bunch of work this sprint, a second client needs a fare amount, and then there are three or four that just need tiny bit of a work
in the sprint It would be hard in those types of situations to turn the goals of multiple clients into a one-sentence sprint goal.
Some teams try and end up with sprint goals such as finish the seven user stories we committed to, but finish seven stories committed is not a good sprint.
A sprint has to be higher level than that.
Yet, if you're working on things for seven different clients and you've got one user story from each, you probably can't write a very good sprinkle.
What this boils down to is that sprinkles are very helpful for some teams, but not for all teams in the world.
That's why I would consider them an optional part of Scrum.
I absolutely want you to try Sprint goals to see if they work for you.
But if the don't work, that's okay.
Especially if you're in a situation like I just described.
Are you using sprint goals?
Do they help focus your team on the most important work to complete in the sprint?
Let me know in comments.
I read and value every comment.
If this video has been helpful, click the Like button.
And if you're new to the channel, subscribe so you don't miss out on future tips to help you succeed with Agile.
Thank you for watching, and I'll see you next time.

The Truth About Effective Agile Teams

Transcript

It seems fashionable lately to make videos and write articles saying Agile is not about going faster.
I completely disagree.
Agiles is about doing faster!
Those claiming Agil is NOT about faster point out that Agils is delivering more value and that teams should avoid becoming the dreaded feature factories
cranking out unneeded features.
Each of these points is valid, but a faster team will be able to deliver more.
Yes, that team needs to be focused on delivering the most important features that will achieve the more meaningful outcomes.
But why can't the team do that and still deliver faster than a non-agile team?
Are there really teams out there just knowingly building worthless features merely so they can claim to have delivered more features?
I don't see them.
If we assume a team, and especially its product owner or product manager, is striving to deliver the most value, then Agile is absolutely about going faster.
Have you been to an arcade and seen the game where players attempt to throw a basketball through a hoop as many times as possible in a minute?
This game is not about doing fast.
It's about making the best shots.
But the best players shoot quickly.
They aren't just indiscriminately throwing the ball in the air, they are still trying to make each shot.
Like an arcade basketball player, an agile team can strive to go fast and make its shots count.
Developing the right things and doing it quickly are not incompatible goals.
I teach a class called Working on a Scrum Team that is designed to help teams deliver the right outcomes more quickly.
Unlike Certified Scum Master and similar courses, this course is design from the ground up as a whole team course.
Plus, its modular structure allows us to configure the course to match your needs.
If you're interested, there's a link in the description.
As always, thanks for watching.

This Common Mistake Can Kill Agile Teams

Transcript

The words iteration and sprint are often used interchangeably.
Sprint is, of course, the Scrum term.
Iteration is more framework neutral.
The word people use seems to be an indicator of whether their first exposure was to Scum or to generic Agile.
i spent a day with a client who was using both terms.
Not a problem, I'm used to that.
But on the second day, someone said something that struck me.
He said, that's what we do in an iteration.
Of course it's totally different during a sprint.
Huh?
Do they have different meanings for what I'd considered until then to be synonyms?
I asked what the difference was between a sprint and an iteration.
I learned they call it a Sprint if they're working overtime and in iteration otherwise.
You know what?
There might actually be something to that.
But when I raised the question, I learnt I was not the only one who didn't know they were using the terms differently.
Words are important.
They have their meanings, but words also carry connotations.
These are implications of a word or impressions that form when we hear words.
It may actually make sense for sprint to mean an iteration with overtime.
A connotation of sprint could be going faster, going fast with the normal.
That's how we'd use sprint when talking about running.
So that connotation easily carries over to what we think of when we use it in an Agile context.
But when words are used inconsistently in organization, it creates real problems.
Some common confusions I see include story points are complexity to some and a combination of four factors, including complexity,
to others.
Still, other people may not have a clear definition of a story point at all.
A sprint review is nothing more than a demo to some people and a more comprehensive review to others.
And some view a daily scrum as a status meeting, others view it as synchronization meeting.
Even simple words like team and product can create confusion.
One organization I worked with had a year-long simmering debate over precisely what a product was for them.
These problems have persisted for decades, probably since the second person joined the first agile team.
But the problems seem more prevalent today.
I think it's because teams today are formative people who learned agile and practiced agile differently.
Different training and different experiences led them to different opinions about how best to do agile.
When team members use different words or have different understandings of core agile principles and practices, it's difficult for everyone to find common ground.
If you've seen confusion over agile vocabulary and the proper names of common agile practices consider taking some time to define common terms and baseline practices.
One way Mountain Goat can help you with this is through our Working on a Scrum Team classes.
Learn more about how these courses can your team to get on the same page about Scum and Agile via the link shown above.
Thanks for watching, and I'll see you next time.

Three Things I Truly Love About Agile (Plus Two I Just Don't)

Transcript

It's been 30 years since the birth of Scrum back in 1995. In honor of that anniversary and Valentine's Day, I want to share three things I still love about
working in an Agile way, and two things about Agil that kind of bug me.
First, I love how being agile means I don't have to make all the decisions.
Back when I managed teams using a traditional process, team members looked to me to made too many decisions With Scrum, the team is empowered to makes
decisions themselves, which means the teams moves faster and often the decision are better because those making the decides are closer to the work.
As a leader, refrain from reversing a decision just because it differs from the one you would have made.
Likely, the harm caused to the team's sense of ownership will be far worse than the outcome of the decision without your tweak.
Second, I love the added focus and momentum teams have from working in iterations and meeting daily to sync their progress.
Here's a tip to make this focus even stronger.
If you're working on four week sprints, move to two week sprint.
You might be surprised by how much more the team can accomplish over the long run.
Third, I love how sprint reviews keep teams and their product owners focused on end users.
Hearing directly from users ensures a better end product.
If you're having trouble getting stakeholders to engage in your sprint review, take a look at the video I've linked in the description.
Now for the things about Agile that bug me.
First, I don't like the name Agil.
It's too appealing.
it's like that old saying that you can't be too rich, too thin, or too agile.
Everyone wants to be agile, not everyone wants do the work of changing.
An organization behaves how it does because of things like its org chart, job titles, how goals are set, the attitudes and behavior of managers and leaders
and more.
All of this organizational gravity shapes teams and behaviors.
If you want to create a truly agile company, you're going to have to make changes at the system level.
if you don't, You can hire all the agile coaches in the world, but the change won't last.
Second, I don' like the damage done to the overall agile movement when people try an agile practice or two, don''t fully commit to working differently,
and then blame agile when not much changes.
I read once that 10 times the number of people who attended Woodstock claim they were at Wood stock.
It's like that with agile processes.
Out of all the agile teams that claim that they've tried agile, maybe a tenth really gave agile a fair try.
And the ones who phoned it in are the one who complain it doesn't work.
So here's my tip.
If your team is half-heartedly trying agile or Scrum, go all in.
If people aren't sure how to work as part of a Scrum team, invest in training for your whole team.
Or if that isn't feasible, send a few members of your team to the same training.
Scrum is a time-tested framework for getting better products into users' hands faster.
But giving Scum an honest try and making hard changes are essential if you want to succeed.
If you found this video helpful, please do me a favor and hit the Like button.
It really does help YouTube know to show the video to others.
And click the Subscribe button if would like to be notified of future tips.

Three Tips for Successful Story Mapping in a Story-Writing Workshop

Transcript

Hi, and thank you for signing up to this free training on user stories.
I'm Mike Cohn from Mountain Goat Software.
This is just one in a series of free videos that will help you overcome some of the biggest problems with user story.
You can follow the links on this page to watch the other videos.
As lightweight placeholders for conversations, user stories encourage communication.
They help you plan and prioritize what to build, all while keeping the focus on end user value, which in turn delivers value to your customers.
User stories eliminate lengthy documentation and tedious meetings, Which keeps your teams engaged and improves momentum and motivation.
There's just one problem.
Despite their inherent value and simplicity, user stories are far from easy to master.
For too many agile teams, writing user story is a constant struggle.
But it doesn't have to be that way.
I've coached more than 20,000 people on user Stories.
And I want you to know that writing great stories is easier than you might think.
I've seen people with all levels of experience, various roles, and different backgrounds transform their approach for the better.
So I know I can help you.
There are three main challenges that overwhelm teams today.
These are getting teams engaged enough to write user stories, adding too much or too little detail, leading to delays in development and missing functionality,
spending too time trying to split stories in a meaningful way at the cost of building something.
I've created a series of videos with behind the scenes training that shows you how to solve common problems around each of these challenges.
I'll also let you know about a resource you can use to truly master user stories for good.
Keep watching to find out more about that.
In this first video, I'm going to show you how to make sure you start on the right track.
I will show how you reduce resistance and get your team engaged when writing user story.
And I show more meaningful discussions.
Discussions that zero in on a user's needs from the very start.
One viewer said this video really helped his team see the big picture and organize thoughts while creating user stories.
Another said it helped uncover missing stories and resolve prioritization issues.
I'm confident you'll find it valuable also.
After this video, you're going to know how far ahead to look when writing user stories.
Who should write user's stories?
Should it be one person, the entire team, or something in between?
How to do story mapping to uncover functionality you may have otherwise overlooked.
To do this, I'll show you how to focus your storywriting sessions so that story writing doesn't become a never-ending process.
In short, this video is going to give you a great start to writing user stories.
But before we jump into the how, i want to share two stories that show why even smart agile teams can find themselves with user story issues right from
the start.
When I first met Sharma, he was really down.
He was an analyst for his team, and his product owner had asked him to write the product backlog for a new product.
Sharna wrote the user stories covering what he thought would be the first few months of work on the project.
And when he shared them with his teams, I think he expected a Pulitzer Prize for the job he'd done crafting all those user-stories.
Instead, Sharma's team peppered him with questions.
What should we do if the user's account is expired?
How should handle it when this rare thing happens?
Wouldn't users prefer to do this story after having done that other story?
Can all users do or just some?
Why do users want to this at all?
The questions went on and on.
Sharmas team had so many questions because what they were being asked to build was completely new to them.
They wanted the answers.
but they were also trying to understand the product and buy into the vision.
Remember, they had not participated when the stories were initially created.
Sharma had done that alone.
So although ultimately Sharama was able to communicate his vision for the project, he spent far more time doing so than if he'd simply involved the team
in writing stories from the start.
Co-creating something, it turns out, is one of the best ways of establishing an aligned vision of a product.
Rick and his team suffered from a different problem.
Rick was a product owner and unlike Sharma, he did include his time in writing user stories, but Rick overdid it.
He held three solid days of story writing meetings in an attempt to document every user story that would be built over the coming year of development.
Rich told me he was later frustrated because even with so much time invested, his had failed to identify all of the needed user-stories.
When that product was deployed 12 months later, users were unimpressed.
They'd waited over a year and some critical functionality was missing.
If Rick and his team had spent less time trying to predict every user need upfront and more time engaging actual users in multiple story writing sessions
spread across the year, they would have been much more likely to have discovered that overlooked functionality.
The situation was so frustrating for Rick that he left the company shortly after this.
I met him at his new company when he brought me in to facilitate a storywriting workshop because he wanted to understand what had gone wrong at this prior company.
Both Rick and Sharma had, unfortunately, started their projects off on the wrong foot.
Sharna, by not doing a storytelling workshop at all, and Rick, thinking that one story writing workshop could discover all functionality for a year-long project.
Stories are not simply a replacement for a traditional requirement specification.
We don't tear up the big document full of the system shall this and the systems shall that and replace it with an equally long document,
full as user I want this, and as a user, I went that.
I coached Sharma and Rick to engage their teams in a lightweight approach to identifying what their team's needed to build.
Sharman needed to include his developers in this, and Rick needed hold regular, shorter workshops.
Fortunately, these problems can be easily avoided by properly conducting your storywriting sessions.
So in the lesson, I want to share with you three tips for conducting a successful story writing workshop.
The first tip, and one of the most fundamental things you can do if you want to run a storywriting workshop successfully,
is to focus the meeting on a single, significant objective.
Your significant objectives should be something that will take a couple of months to do.
That means it's bigger than a simple iteration.
And the best news about that is that it means you don't need to a do a storytelling workshop every iteration, in fact, doing so is a bad idea.
The team's product owner, key stakeholder, or whatever you call their primary visionary for the product should select a single big goal and bring it as
input into the story writing workshop.
Some product owners have full authority and can simply determine the significant objective on their own.
This would likely be the case in a small startup.
The founder decides what general functionality needs to be developed in the coming quarter and that's it.
In most cases though, a good product owner will identify the significant objective in collaboration with stakeholders.
The product will talk to customers, users, and others in company about what they think is the most important thing to focus on in next three months.
If your team uses the term minimum viable product or MVP, developing an MVP could be a great significant objective.
An MVP is valuable.
Your users will either like it or you'll learn from it more about what users really do want.
And an MVP is significant in that it will probably take longer than a single iteration.
This doesn't mean a story writing workshop is something you should only do when working to build the first minimally viable version of your product.
No, a story writing workshop is just as valuable for ongoing development.
In fact, the term I like better than minimum viable product is minimum marketable feature, or MMF.
This comes from the book Software by Numbers.
It refers to a chunk of functionality that delivers a subset of what users need.
but that is enough to be valuable to users when released.
So a team's significant objective could be an MVP in the early days of a product when trying to determine what their product should be,
or it could a minimum marketable feature once viability has been established and their project is being incrementally improved or enhanced.
Whichever way you choose to think about it, though, you really want to start a storywriting workshop with a significant objective that will take a few
iterations to achieve.
I recommend the cadence of a quarterly cycle, so you want a significantly objective, that can be delivered in about that amount of time.
The significant objective is an input into a successful storywriting workshop.
The workshop starts with the product owner or key stakeholder presenting the significant Objective.
But besides the Product Owner or Key Stakeholder, who participates in this meeting?
That's the second tip I want to share with you today.
For a Successful Storywriting Workshop, you need to have the right participants.
Of course, the Project Owner and Key stakeholder needs to participate.
If you're a Scrum team, the Scum Master should be there.
If your doing something other than Sc rum and have a coach, that person should attend.
Your Scrum master or coach will facilitate the meeting.
They'll do things like keep an eye on whether everyone is staying engaged or if perhaps it's time for a break.
The facilitator will do anything they can to make the meetings run smoothly and productively.
You should also have the development team members participate.
That means programmers, testers, analysts, designers, database developers, technical writers, and so on.
Anyone involved in the developing of their product or system should be there.
You may be tempted to leave out some or even all of the Development Team members.
I strongly advise against that.
Having the whole team in this meeting will lead to them being better engaged later.
Also, when stories are developed, team members are going to have questions about how some stories should work, what is meant by a given story,
and so on.
If they participate when the stories were first written, they'll know the answers to more of those questions during future iteration planning sessions
and during the iterations themselves.
So, having team member participate is not as time-consuming as it seems, as the project will save some of this time later.
Finally, having team members participate will likely lead to more creativity during the meeting.
Team members bring a different perspective from the other participants, and this can often result in more innovative solutions.
Let me give you one possible exception to involving the entire team.
If the significant objective that will be discussed involves multiple teams, that would lead to a lot of people participating.
In this case, I'd be okay with a subset of the development team participating, select people based on who will contribute the most to the workshop and
who is most willing to participate.
As an alternative though, you may want to consider parsing the significant objective up into parts by team.
Each team then takes complete responsibility for achieving a part of the overall significant objectives.
If you do that, You would have multiple smaller story writing workshops and each would be attended by a full development team Okay,
so I've said that participants in a story writing workshop are the product owner or key stakeholder, the scrum master or coach,
and the development team.
What about users and stakeholders?
Yes, normally you should include them, or at least invite them.
But there are times when you may not want to.
Sometimes stakeholders can be very disruptive as they argue among themselves over whose pet feature is more important.
If you run into this problem, you'll want to emphasize to stakeholders that a storywriting workshop is about understanding what users do or will do with
a product.
Just because something is discussed during the workshop does not mean it's going to be prioritized over some other feature.
If your really clear this up, it can stop a lot of that arguing and posturing that some stakeholders will in a storytelling workshop.
So if at all possible, include stakeholders and users.
That brings us to the third tip for your story writing workshops, and that is to use some way to graphically visualize the relationships between stories
while they're being written.
There are a few ways to do this, such as a goal story hierarchy or a mind map, but I want to talk today about using a story map because in most situations,
that will be the best way to visualize stories.
A story is a two-dimensional representation of the things a user wants to.
The first dimension is the sequence of activities that is depicted horizontally across the map.
For example, let's suppose you're on a team that has been told to develop software that will allow company employees to submit expense reports and be reimbursed.
To create a story map, we begin by documenting each step in the process.
The first thing an employee who wants to submitted an expense report needs to do is log into the new system you'll develop.
So we start the storymap by writing log in on sticky note or index card.
Next, our user is somehow going to tell the system that he or she wants to start a new blank expense report.
After that, the user enters the expenses.
Dinner on Tuesday costs this much, a night in a hotel costs that much and so on.
Then, after all the expense has been entered, The employee submits the Expense Report for approval.
The way we read this story map is quite natural.
We read across by mentally inserting the word then between each of the cards.
So this StoryMap reads as log in, then start new blank expense report, Then enter expenses, THEN submit for approval.
But I said a Story Map is two-dimensional.
we've only got one dimension here.
so what's the second dimension?
Vertically on the story map, we can list alternatives.
For example, looking at our story, map we might realize that some users could create a new expense report by copying an old one.
I do this quite often.
When I need to create an expense for something I've done before, say a trip to a particular city, I start by making a copy of the prior expense.
Report I often stay at the same hotel and eat at same places, so this saves time.
So let's add an additional item to our StoryMap, Copy an Existing Expense Report.
You can see here that I put that item below Start New Expence Report, since it represents an option the user has at this point in the sequence.
This means the second dimension on a Story Map is vertical, and we read that by mentally inserting OR between the items.
So this part of the Story map is read as Start new blank expense report or Copy and existing expense reports.
Sometimes, when you show alternatives, you can make the story map more clear by adding an additional card that summarizes what the alternatives do.
I'll do that here.
Above the two cards that show alternative for how a user might start an expense report, I will add a new card titled Start New Expense Report.
This is all good so far, but let's look at two ways in which Story Maps become very helpful.
First, Story maps can help you find stories or functionality you may have overlooked.
To do this, walk through the Story Map and see if anything is missing.
When doing this it can be very help to ask a few questions at each step such as, what will a user most likely want to do next?
What mistakes could a use make here?
What could confuse a user at this point?
What additional information could a users need?
If your product has multiple types of users, ask these questions for each type of user.
Doing this on our sample story map, I realized that users are often going to need to attach receipts for some expenses.
So let's add that as a new step.
And maybe participants in the story writing workshop suggest that the product allow users to do this two ways.
First, they suggest it would be nice if the system itself could activate a device's camera and scan a receipt directly.
Second, users will need an ability to attach an existing PDF or image to the receipt.
And you can see I've added each of these alternatives below the Attach Receipts card on the Story Map.
But when we add alternatives to a Story map, we should add them in priority order.
High priority items should be higher on that map.
So I'm going to swap the order of the two newest cards.
I think it's going be much more important to attached existing pdfs or images than it will be to have the system scan receipts itself.
That seems much more like a nice-to-have feature, so I've positioned it lowest on the story map.
Because story maps are arranged vertically from high priority down to low, that gives us the second big benefit of story mapping.
We can use the story map to select the stories that will be delivered in different releases of a product.
To do this, we add a horizontal line to the map and then drag above the line everything that must be included in the next release or version of the product
for our mythical expense reporting system.
we need the ability to log in.
We also need to start a new expense report, but let's assume that starting with a New Blank Report is good enough at first.
We'll add the ability to copy an existing expense reports later.
Users will need be able to enter expenses, and they'll need attach receipts.
But initially, attaching existing PDFs or images will be good.
So we'll leave the story about scanning below the line.
And users will to be to able submit the finished expense for approval.
If you need to, you can go further with this by adding additional lines to represent subsequent milestones, and then positioning the necessary stories
above each milestone line as appropriate.
If do this, it's also nice to put a label above the each line that describes what that milestone or release of the product represents,
as you see I've done here.
This is a great way of visually conveying a roadmap of planned future functionality.
So to recap, for a successful story writing workshop, you want to make sure you focus on the right objective, have the people there,
and visualize the relationships between stories with a technique like story mapping to help you and your team prioritize needs in a way that drives business value.
If you follow this advice, you'll be off to a great start.
But once you have your user stories written, your going to need to know how to split them.
If your don't know to how split user story in a meaningful way, Your going run into some problems pretty quickly and others much further down the line.
In the next video in this series, You're going hear how one team decided to give up splitting stories all together and discovered some unexpected consequences
from that.
What's more, I'll be sharing a simple five-step technique that streamlines and simplifies splitting stories, even complex ones,
without compromising quality.
This means you can save a lot of time when it comes to splitting the stories and have stories that deliver stakeholder value and can be completed within
an iteration.
The technique I'll share with you can really take the pain out of the process of splitting user stories.
You can find details about how to access that video on this page.
I'd love to know, what is the one key lesson you learned today that you found most valuable?
Let me and everyone else know by writing it in the comments.
If you've enjoyed this video, I want to let you know about an additional resource to take your learning even further.
On this page, you'll find information about becoming a member of the Better User Stories course.
Better user stories is an in-depth video course covering all aspects of user Stories.
It's based on practical materials I've used for teaching the subject to more than 20,000 people over the last 15 years.
Ken Rubin, the author of the bestselling book, Essential Scrum, was even kind enough to tell me that he recommends better user stories to his clients as
a way to improve their personnel's user story writing skills.
To find out more about the course, simply follow the link on this page.

Transform Too Many Scrum Meetings into Sprint Success

Transcript

A common criticism of Scrum is that it has too many meetings, and those meetings take too long.
I understand the complaint.
Actually, I hate unnecessary or overly long meetings.
To me, the meetings and the other rules of scrum are like lines painted on the highway.
They're there to help us go faster.
When Scrum meetings are done well, and that includes being as short as possible, those meetings help a team go faster.
Meetings become an investment in Sprint's success rather than a burden.
When a Scum team complains about meetings, it's usually a symptom that their meetings aren't going well.
To fix it, focus on the purpose of each meeting and keep the meetings as We'll start with sprint planning, the purpose of which is to establish a sprint
goal and choose the relevant product backlog items the team will tackle.
To do this, teams typically discuss tasks and a rough estimate for each to form a Sprint Backlog.
While these discussions are helpful, they should last only long enough to help choose appropriate work.
The Scrum Master can play a pivotal role in curbing excessive debates over specific estimates.
For instance, whether a task is estimated at four hours or eight hours is unlikely to change a team's decision about whether the product backlog item can
fit in a Sprint.
Likewise, if the developers agree that a task will take six hours but can't agree on how they'll implement it, good enough.
That detail does not need to be resolved during sprint planning.
What I do in this case is add a sprint backlog item saying to do the thing and give it an estimate of six-hours in the case,
and then add another task, fight over how to it and get that an hour estimate.
Okay, maybe argue is better than fight, but you get my point that the argument can happen later.
I recommend that you try to finish sprint planning in 45 minutes or less per week of sprint duration.
That means 90 minutes for a two-week sprint.
It may take longer as a new team gets the hang of spring planning.
You can probably do it a little faster, but don't rush sprint planning.
Saving time here is a false economy, as it just means the team has left too much unidentified work that they will uncover during the sprint.
Onto the Sprint Review.
The purpose of the sprint review is to solicit feedback on items completed during the sprint to discuss how that affects future plans for the product.
A demo is the central activity in most sprint reviews.
a common mistake in sprint is teams feeling the necessity to demo everything they worked on.
Teams doing this seem to think the review used to justify their existence.
Some items don't warrant a demo.
For example, if a team fixed a bug and fixed it in the only way it could have been fixed, that item does not need to be shown.
Sure, If a review participant asks to see it, go ahead and show it.
But save time in reviews by showing just the important new functionality on which the team needs feedback.
A sprint review should never take more than 90 minutes.
If a lot of hot issues unexpectedly arise and the meeting is on pace to take longer than that, the Scrum Master should limit conversations and promise
to schedule follow-up meetings on specific topics.
Each of those meetings can then be limited to the smallest set of participants necessary.
I think most sprint reviews can be very easily completed within 60 minutes.
If yours are routinely taking longer, here are a couple of suggestions.
Reduce the number of participants in the meeting, shorten your sprints, or conduct more ad hoc demos of functionality during the sprint to the most interested
or vocal participants.
Let's move on to the sprint retrospective.
The purpose of the retrospectives is for team members to identify ways in which the team can improve.
Most common mistake in the Retrospective is discussing things the teams either cannot change or does not plan to change in their near term.
I once participated in a retrospective in which someone said the team should stop climate change.
He didn't want to slow climate by perhaps reducing the teams carbon footprint, he wanted to stop it.
I'm sure the Scrum Master got right to work on that, probably after the Scrum Master ended World Hunger.
This is an extreme example.
More common is the same issue being brought up repeatedly, retro after retro.
One team had grand plans to simplify the creation of new automated tests with a database of canonical test data.
While the entire team supported this initiative, they collectively acknowledged that there wouldn't be time to implement it for another six months.
Despite this consensus, one team member persisted in bringing up the idea at every retrospective.
In such instances, the Scrum Master should guide team members to concentrate exclusively on issues they can influence and are eager to tackle in the short term.
If the team decides to postpone an item, The Scum Master can set a reminder in their to-do list or calendar app, ensuring it resurfaces at an appropriate time.
If a team is new and therefore has lots of room for improvement, I set a one-hour limit for retrospectives, regardless of sprint length.
I consider that a very soft limit.
If the hot issue blows up and it's worth talking about, then I'm willing to let the retrospective go longer, as long as the conversation seems constructive.
Once a team gets good, I target 30 minutes for retrospectives.
That might be a little tight, and I'm occasionally told it should be longer.
It's worth keeping in mind, though, the ROI of a retrospective.
An extra 30-minutes for an 8-person team is 4 hours spent.
To be worthwhile, that 30 minute should have an improvement worth at least that much to the team.
Moving on to Product Backlog Refinement.
The purpose of refinement is to make sure the highest priority product backlog items are sufficiently well understood and small enough that each can be
worked on in the coming sprint.
This is the meeting where I see the most time added beyond what's strictly necessary.
Often team members erroneously use the refignment meeting to eliminate all or nearly all uncertainty from each product back log item.
Instead, all that's needed is to eliminate enough uncertainty that team members feel comfortable, not necessarily 100% confident,
but comfortable that they know enough about the backlog item to complete it in the coming sprint.
Scrum Masters need to help teams become comfortable bringing items into a sprint with some issues unresolved.
I recommend easing a team into this.
Begin during refinement by gaining agreement that some trivial issues can remain open, but emphasize that team members can resolve them as early in the
sprint as they want.
progress from there to leaving bigger issues open to be resolved during the sprint.
It's hard to recommend a maximum amount of time for refinement because it depends on a lot of factors, such as how long your sprints are,
how fast the team is progressing through backlog items, How messy the product backlog is currently, the domain, and more.
Independent of how long your sprints are, I recommend that you limit backlog refinement meetings to 90 minutes.
If necessary, do two meetings per sprint.
For nearly all teams, it's very achievable to complete refignment in one meeting no longer than 90. It helps if you think of the meeting as a pre-planning checkpoint.
You want to see if top priority items are small enough and sufficiently well understood to be done in the coming sprint.
To do that, you don't need to resolve all open issues.
Daily scrums are a common source of complaint because, well, they happen daily.
The purpose of the daily scrum is discussing progress toward the sprint goal and adjusting the Sprint Backlog as needed.
Team members synchronize effort during the Daily Scrum.
Why do daily scrums take too long?
It's often because team members spend too much time discussing how to solve problems.
Problems should be identified during the daily scrum, but do not necessarily need to be solved.
Some problems are so simple they should addressed right when they're brought up.
I coach Scrum Masters to encourage a problem-solution thank you approach.
A problem can be mentioned.
When possible, someone provides a simple answer and is thanked.
If this turns into questions, clarifications, and additional detail, the scrum master intervenes and indicates their problem should be discussed by just
the parties involved and immediately after the Daily Scrum.
I think a good target for daily scrums is about 10 minutes.
This, of course, depends on the team size and more, but 10 is enough to quickly synchronize effort.
I don't recommend being one of the teams who brag about doing their daily scrims in three or five minutes, a three-minute meeting is probably not worth doing.
And I'm not a huge stickler on the 15 minute limit of a daily scrum.
I don't think that a team should exceed 15 minutes on a routine basis, but an 18 or 20 minute daily scrub once a sprint is hardly a problem if the extra
time is for good discussion.
Scrum meetings should not be a burden.
When done well, the meetings will help team members work efficiently and effectively to achieve their goals.
Meeting fatigue is a common complaint from teams that are either new to Scum or have drifted away from the purpose of these meetings.
Getting the most out of meetings is something I and the other Mountain Goat trainers cover in our Working on a Scrum Team course,
which is aimed at teams that are either new to Sc rum, new working together, or seeking to refresh how they work.
If you'd like to level set the understanding of Scum meetings with your team, you can find out more about the course in the description.

Treat Features, Epics, & Themes as Labels

Transcript

There's not a magic size when an epic becomes a feature or the other way around.
I recommend you think of these terms as labels or tags that can be applied rather than as a strict hierarchy.
Hi, I'm Mike Cohn and I am the author of three best-selling books on Agile and Scrum.
Think of tagging movies in your movie library software.
I want to tag some movies as action movies, some as comedies, and perhaps some romantic comedys.
Is there a strict definition of these?
If there are 32 jokes per hour, does that make it a comedy?
If there are 20 jokes plus a kiss, is it a romantic comedy?
It doesn't work that way.
Action movie, comedy, romantic-comedy are just labels we can apply, and we do it for our convenience.
The same should be true of terms like user story, theme, epic, feature, saga, or initiative.
They're just labels.
Use them if they're convenient, or I guess if someone in your organization is requiring them.
Is your team using a complicated product backlog item hierarchy?
What benefits do you see to that?
Any challenges?
Do you use terms other than the ones I've described?
Let me know in the comments.
I read and appreciate every comment.
If this video has been helpful, click the Like button.
And if you're new to this channel, Click Subscribe so you don't miss out on future tips to help you succeed with Agile.
Thank you for watching, and I'll see you next time.

Two Ways to Create Better Sprint Task Estimates

Transcript

Estimating is tough, but there are many things you can do that will result in better estimates.
In this video, let's take a look at two of them.
As a first tip, uncover hidden assumptions by asking team members what has to go right for you to finish in that amount of time.
This forces estimators to consider and verbalize their assumptions.
as an example, a tester might say that they need to get a fully testable version of a feature with at least four days left in the sprint.
Or a programmer might say they are assuming the last few open issues on the user interface design don't add significant complexity to the work.
A similar question you could ask instead is, what could make this estimate too low?
This question will also encourage estimators to think about things they're assuming will go well.
It's fine to base an estimate on things going well, but the estimate becomes questionable if it requires too many things to all end up being true.
Let's look at a second technique to improve a team's estimates.
This technique is called unpacking.
When unpacked an item to be estimated, the team discusses either the steps that will be performed to complete the item or some attributes of the work.
For example, suppose a team is estimating making a spaghetti dinner for a few friends.
There are two general ways this could be unpacked.
First would be for the team to discuss the steps involved.
Team members list steps such as shopping for ingredients, chopping the vegetables for sauce, cooking the sauce.
Also chopping vegetables from the salad that will accompany dinner, making garlic bread, and so on.
Another way to unpack making a spaghetti dinner could be to list the ingredients that will go into the meal.
Noodles, tomatoes, garlic, onions, butter, bread, lettuce, and so on.
Whichever of these ways a team unpacks cooking a Spaghetti Dinner, their estimate will likely be larger than if they had not unpacked the work.
Research has shown that unpacking leads to larger estimates, which are more likely to be accurate, as most teams tend to underestimate.
Think about how you would have estimated cooking the spaghetti dinner without unpackging.
Then think about your estimate would've changed after listing either the steps or all of the ingredients.
Most likely, the extra detail would lead you to a higher and probably more realistic estimate.
As an example, suppose a programmer on a team frequently underestimates how long programming tasks will take.
In the next sprint planning meeting, ask that programmer to give just a high level description of what the code will need to do.
When the programmer describes the steps the codes will perform, she is unpacking the work.
After describing the coat this way, the estimate she'll provide will usually be larger and more likely a better estimate.
Note that when unpacking something, the team identifies sub-steps of the work, but they estimate the original full thing,
not the sub steps.
If your team chronically underestimates, which will show up as them bringing more into a sprint than they can finish, include unpack in your next sprint
planning meeting.
You don't need to do it on every backlog item being considered for the sprint.
Try it first on the larger or riskier items.
Asking questions like what has got to go right for you to finish in that amount of time and unpacking items before estimating them can help your team get
better at estimations.
If you try either of these techniques, let me know in the comments how it works for your.
And if you have any other tips for improving a team's estimates, please share those as well.
I read and value every comment.
If this video has been useful, click the Like button.
And if you're new to this channel, Click Subscribe so you don't miss out on future tips to help you succeed with Agile.
Thank you for watching, and I'll see you next time.

Uncover the Secret: Does Every Scrum Team Really Need a Sprint Goal?

Transcript

Scrum teams are taught they need to have a sprint goal.
The Scum Guide says so.
Lots of Agile coaches say so, I disagree.
I don't think every team needs a Sprint Goal every sprint.
And today I'm going to tell you why Sprints Goals are not always useful.
Hi, i'm Mike Cohn, and I am the author of three best-selling books on Agil and Scrumb.
First off, sprint goals are great for some teams some of the time.
I just don't think every team needs one every sprint.
But I have to tell you though, I'm in the minority on this view.
Just like I am in a minority in believing, or at least hoping, that Nessie is real.
Okay, maybe Nessie isn't real, but there are real benefits to having a sprint goal for some teams, just not every team.
A sprint is a short one or two sentence description of a Scrum team's single objective for the sprint.
I love that!
I spend a lot of time advising organizations to narrow their focus regarding what they'll achieve, whether it be for a year,
a quarter, or even a single sprint, It's all too common for an organization or team to select a goal the way I load my plate at a buffet.
A little of this, a little that, some of the other.
But sometimes a sprint cannot be focused on a single objective.
Some teams simply have multiple things that need to get done.
For example, consider a digital agency.
A team there could be simultaneously building a new website for one client, doing some mid-sized enhancements for a second client and making small bug
fixes or edits for five additional clients.
How should their sprint goal be written?
Should the goal focus on the new web site, which will consume the most work during the sprint, or should the goals focus the small edits if those are for
the company's most important client?
Some teams merge all that into one goal with something like, finish the seven user stories we committed to.
That doesn't help.
It doesn' provide the clarity a good sprint goal gives.
And it's too broad to focus the team on a single objective.
Teams who write finish the user stories we committed to and consider that a sprint goal have effectively given up on sprint goals.
The goal of the sprint is to focus the team's attention on what most needs to be achieved.
I remember how vital this was in the late 90s, the early days of Scrum.
Back then, all teams did four-week sprints.
No one did what today we call product backlog refinement, and extreme programming hadn't yet introduced the world to user stories.
Back in the 90s, teams would lose sight of what they were working on.
I can clearly remember a long-ago mid-sprint discussion with a programmer who said, remind me, what is it we're trying to get done in this sprint?
In a long sprint with inadequately expressed product backlog items, this developer had quite literally forgotten whatever big goal the team was pursuing
that sprint.
The sprint goal served to restore focus on that goal.
I remember answering his question with increasing the average time spent on the search results screen, which was the sprint.
In the early days of Scrum, sprint goals were usually used to evaluate the Sprint, meet the sprint goal, and the spirit was a success.
Don't achieve the spring goal and this sprint was not a Looking at a sprint this way is incomplete.
There are often important things that need to be done that are outside a one or two sentence sprint goal.
Distilling an entire sprint to one goal has the same problems I have with to-do and personal productivity systems that tell me to make a list of the three
most important thing I need accomplish each day.
Paying my mortgage is rarely the most important thing I need to do on a given day, but it does need be done.
Should I really put off paying my mortgages until the day I'm to be evicted for nonpayment, at which point it finally is the important most thing that day?
A sprint is a complicated collection of work that a team needs to accomplish.
That work cannot always be encapsulated within a single goal.
Here's what I'd recommend, if sprint goals work for your team, by all means, you should continue using them.
If you hear, what is it we're trying to get done this sprint from the team?
Sprint goals can help.
And if you're new to Scrum, You should absolutely try writing sprint goal for a few sprints.
But if you've tried writing sprint goals and they just didn't work for your team, then consider your effort a useful experiment and proceed without them.
There you go.
You've heard my opinion on sprint calls.
Let me hear yours in the comment section.
I'd love to hear if sprinkles are working for you.
As I said, they work from many teams.
But if you've tried Sprint Goals and they haven't worked, let me know how your team has been doing without Sprints Goal.
I'll bet the wheels didn't fall off.
If this video has be useful, click the like button.
And if your new to this channel click subscribe so you don't miss out on future tips to help you succeed with Agile.
Thank you for watching and I will see you next time.