A. The team often over-commits during the Iterations and does not have available time to retrospect
B. The team does not identify and commit to improvement items for how they do their work
C. The team does not inspect the Program Increment and revise the product backlog
D. The team does not feel valued by the Enterprise
E. The team identifies improvements but is not allowed to address them
The correct answer is
B. The team does not identify and commit to improvement items for how they do their work.
E. The team identifies improvements but is not allowed to address them.
The two specific anti-patterns most likely present within the team’s retrospectives, leading to the team finding no value in them and asking for their cancellation, are:
- The team does not identify and commit to improvement items for how they do their work.
- The team identifies improvements but is not allowed to address them.
Why these are correct
- The team does not identify and commit to improvement items for how they do their work: One of the core purposes of the Iteration retrospective is for the team to reflect on their work processes and identify areas for improvement. If the team is not identifying actionable items or committing to specific improvements, the retrospectives can seem unproductive or pointless. This lack of actionable outcomes can lead to frustration and a perception that the retrospectives are a waste of time.
- The team identifies improvements but is not allowed to address them: Even when improvements are identified if the team is not empowered or allowed to make those changes, it can lead to disillusionment with the retrospective process. This situation undermines the principle of self-organization and continuous improvement that Agile and Scrum espouse. It can make retrospectives seem futile if the team believes that identified improvements will not be implemented.
Why the others are not as correct
- The team often over-commits during the Iterations and does not have available time to retrospect: While over-committing during iterations can be a problem and may lead to time constraints, it does not directly relate to the team finding no value in retrospectives. Over-commitment should be discussed as part of the retrospective itself as an area for improvement.
- The team does not inspect the Program Increment and revise the product backlog: Inspecting the Program Increment and revising the product backlog are important activities, but they are typically not the focus of a team’s Iteration retrospective. These activities are more relevant to the PI Planning and backlog refinement processes. The Iteration retrospective is focused on the team’s processes and performance within the Iteration.
- The team does not feel valued by the Enterprise: Feeling undervalued by the enterprise may affect overall team morale and engagement, but it is a broader issue that is unlikely to be the direct cause of finding no value in retrospectives. This issue might surface in retrospectives but is not an anti-pattern of the retrospective process itself.
Other SAFe Scrum Master Question – What are relationships within a highly collaborative team based on?