5

One of the purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to: "inspect how the last Sprint went with regards to people, relationships, process, and tools".

What mean relationships?

7

The other three are pretty self explanatory: people are the individuals involved in the project and how they conducted the work, processes are how the work was done, and tools are the things necessary to achieve the work. Relationships refers to the connections between these things.

With the people-orientation that the agile methods have, that it tends to refer to the relationships between stakeholders (within the Development Team, Development Team/Product Owner, Development Team/Scrum Master, Product Owner/stakeholders, Scrum Master/Product Owner). However, it could also refer to the relationships between the tools and processes (if the tools are helping or hindering the team's workflow), the processes and the people (if the process preventing people from being their most productive), or the people and the tools (if the people have the knowledge and skills to use the tools effectively).

What this is suggesting is that you look at all factors of the sprint to find things that are going well (so that you can continue to do them or do them on other projects) and to find things that aren't going well (so you can correct them), even if that means looking beyond a single unit.

  • 2
    Totally agree with you! I don't know why, but most people say about "Relationship" in Scrum only like relationship between people, and almost nobody say about relationship between other Scrum items. Nonetheless, word "Relationship" occurs twice in Scrum Guide: On third page: The rules of Scrum bind together the events, roles, and artifacts, governing the relationships and interaction between them. And on the twelfth page (phrase from question): The purpose of the Sprint Retrospective is to: Inspect how the last Sprint went with regards to people, relationships, process, and tools – Sergey Kudryavtsev Aug 26 '14 at 15:43
  • 1
    I agree with this, but you missed the relationships within the development team itself. – SpoonerNZ Aug 26 '14 at 15:44
  • A small addition to my first comment: in really, even in official translation to my native language, word "relationship" from second quote was translated as "relationship between people" in the last phrase. That is not very correct, by my opinion. – Sergey Kudryavtsev Aug 26 '14 at 15:45
  • @SpoonerNZ I updated the post to include that relationship. Thanks. – Thomas Owens Aug 26 '14 at 15:46
  • @ThomasOwens Thanks for reply. You confirmed my point of view :]. – Mariusz Aug 28 '14 at 10:43
1

In some tasks, it's a good idea to work in pairs. So, at this point, in a retrospective, it can be useful to talk about how things worked in a pair. For instance, you can talk about any coordination problems between the colleagues, etc.

[Edited] For example:

A Product Owner -Named Y- defines his User Stories (US) with X AT's. US is revised and estimated but, when a programmer is working in this US PO sometimes adds news AT's and the US grows (more complex, more time...).

Well, in the retrospective we must talk about the problem when tech team works with PO Y because tech team has problems for completing Y's tasks caused by his bad praxis.

  • Hey calejero, welcome to PMSE. In answers, we try to look for a bit more depth to cover any challenges or assumptions that one might make about the question so that we cover multiple scenarios and teach not just tell. Feel free to make an edit if you have more to add. Also, you might take the tour. Hope this helps! – jmort253 Aug 27 '14 at 6:22
  • Hello @jmort253 I added an example. Thank you for your comments. Regards. – calejero Aug 27 '14 at 16:34

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.