Retrospectives should not be about individual people
The Sprint Retrospective section says (July 2013):
"Inspect how the last Sprint went with regards to people, relationships, process, and tools"
From a humanistic / servant-leader / Deming perspective, I feel "people" is not a good word to use here, since it can easily be misunderstood or misconstrued. "Relationships" probably already covers the associated issues.
But if we want to discuss people issues explicitly here (rather than out-of-band), then I would hesitantly suggest "behaviours" as a replacement. And I would put it last, not first.
[Aside: When articulating such a Retrospective list, I usually also call out "policies" explicitly. Although, I suppose "process" might cover it.]
2 commentsComments are closed
I read this as meaning whether the people on the development team have the right skills. As the team has to be cross functional and have all of the skills as a team necessary to create a product increment.
If you have someone on the team who has skills which are not needed, or you need skills which are not present on the team then you have to identify that during the inspection. Therefore you have to inspect the people on the team.
If you are unhappy with the word, perhaps "people" should be replaced by "required skills".
Or perhaps my interpretation is wrong?
Martien van Steenbergen commented
I like ‘policies’ over ‘process’.
+1 on the ‘behavior’ suggestion.
+1 on the ‘relationship’ suggestion: Ackoff: “It is about the *product* (not sum) of the *interactions* (relationships) of parts (humans) of the system (team).