I’m also a fan of constraining the number of items to discuss with newer teams for two reasons. First, it forces the team to prioritise. Second, it means you “stop starting and start finishing”. As with everything it should be adapted to the team’s needs over time.

This is great! thanks for sharing :)

Dysfunction Mapping sounds interesting! have you got any examples/resources that you wouldn't mind sharing?

I’ve seen a lot of retros actually become BMW (B**ching, Moaning, Whinging) sessions that don’t provide any value. Agree actions need to be “actioned” and the SM or coach should be catching the anti-patterns and facilitating accordingly. I’ve seen teams take a “who/what/when” approach which helped.

The key thing being that the developers made that decision and the rules that came with it - no-one else. Also agree many DS events seem to miss the obvious purpose of inspecting progress towards the sprint goal and just become a zombie status update 🧟

I think this is one of the biggest oversights of the DS (daily scrum) in many teams. The DS is “by the developers, for the developers”. I’ve worked with teams that agreed stakeholders can “observe” where it helps deduplicate communication, but with a strict rule that they don’t talk or interrupt.

I wouldn’t have even thought 4 mins tbh, but I’m trying to remember something that I had maybe 30 years ago…. yikes.

What would you propose as an alternative name to Scrum Master?