Skip to main content

Focus the Agile Standup Conversation

Over the past month I had a pleasure of working closer with a team that had a bit of a problem completing everything in their 2 week sprint plans.  Together we introduced a change into how we were doing standups and the same 4 engineers started getting more predictable results and higher throughput.  If you are not already doing these practices they might help your scrum team too.

In order to show you the results of the change I wanted to show you some data.  Below is a chart of the completion rate of each sprint over the last several months:

This is a total number of work done as measured in scrum points.

As you can see the performance improved in both the total output and predictability.  Here are the four changes we introduced in our standups:

#1 Use the board

The first thing we changed was focusing on the scrum board. The team used to meet in an area without a screen or a whiteboard.  They sat around their desks without getting a visual sense of the sprint backlog and how the tasks were moving through.  As a result, they never really got a sense if they were behind or that there was a bottleneck in the process.

We moved the daily standup meeting to an area with a big screen TV where we could project our JIRA board.  Immediately the team started seeing the overall progress of the sprint and started getting a sense of where tasks were piling up.

#2 Focus on the tasks instead of just going around the room

The team used to go around the room and just get an update from everyone in the form of “what are you up to now.” The attention dissipated to activity in general instead of focus on getting the tasks that were in progress or on the backlog. We switched the process to going through the tasks and seeing who could help out with moving things forward.  Instead of “Jenny, what are you going to do today”, we switched to asking: “DFS-1234 is ready for testing, who is able to get this bug verified?” and “the next highest priority task is DSF-5678, who is available to pick it up and start working on it?”

We had fears that maybe we wouldn’t call on someone, but in a usual scrum team of 4-8 people it’s not hard to remember if someone has not had an opportunity to speak yet.  It turned out not to be an issue, but the focus on the tasks and helping each other out to get the tasks done has made a huge difference.

#3 Ask the team when the task is going to be complete

We added another important question to the the standup: “when do you think you are going to be done with your task?”  This added focus on moving things through the pipeline and also added a bit of personal responsibility for delivering things on the agreed upon dates.  Engineers felt more accountability to each other to deliver tasks and raise a flag when things were not going according to plan.  In cases where tasks were passed from one engineer to another the receiving party could plan on when to get ready for those tasks and made the handoff smoother.

#4 Account for downstream processes

Another key question we asked the entire group is looking at the entire sprint backlog as well as individual tasks and asking what it would take to actually get the entire plan done.  This forced everyone to take into account downstream processes and very rapidly we started scheduling and orchestrating work within sprint with a goal of getting everything done to complete the entire task.  I started asking about the lead time that downstream processes need, it turned out that the engineers were very knowledgeable in what was needed.  Everyone attention was focused on the fact that just doing the check into source control, right before the sprint ended was not going to get a task complete.  Over several sprints the team got better and better at scheduling and planning their sprint execution, by the end doubling their throughput.


Getting your team to stay focused and complete the sprints is key to getting predictability and ensures that customers get features and fixes on time. I hope these tips help your organization with your agile processes.

If you liked this blog post check out a few other posts on agile project management:
1) Good Bye, Spec! Hello Direct Contact to Customers!
2) #1 Mistake in Agile Project Management:


Popular posts from this blog

SDET / QA Engineer Interview Checklist

After interviewing and hiring hundreds of engineers over the past 12+  years I have come up with a few checklists.  I wanted to share one of those with you so you could conduct comprehensive interviews of QA Engineers for your team.

I use this checklist when I review incoming resumes and during the interview.  It keeps me from missing areas that ensure a good team and technology fit.  I hope you make good use of them.  If you think there are good questions or topics that I have missed - get in touch with me!

SDE/T or QA Engineer interview checklist from Mike Borozdin
If you like this checklist you might want to check out these posts:
Emotional Intelligence in Software Teams  and Good-bye manual tester, hello crowdsourcing!

Code versus Configuration

At Ethos we are building a distributed mortgage origination system and in mortgage there is a lot of
different user types with processes that vary depending on geography.  One of our ongoing discussions is about how much of the logic resides in code vs. being in a workflow system or configuration.  After researching this topic for a bit, I have arrived at a conclusion that the logic should live outside of code very infrequently, which might come as a surprise to a lot of enterprise software engineers.

Costs of configuration files and workflow engines First thing that I assume is true is that having any logic outside of the code has costs associated with it.  Debugging highly configurable system involves not only getting the appropriate branch from source control, you also need to make sure that the right configuration values or the database.  In most cases this is harder for programmers to deal with.  In many FinTech companies where the production data is not made readily accessible…

Should this be a microservice?

After having developed several distributed systems and been a part of dozens of architectural discussions I decided to put together a way to frame the microservices debate. Microservices have been fashionable for some time. A lot of it stemmed from the fact that big and successful cloud companies are using microservices.  It seems reasonable that to create a “serious system” one must be using serious tools and architecture, today it’s microservices.  No engineer wants to be called out for creating a solution that “doesn’t scale.”

The definition for a microservice varies, but overall it tends to be a piece of your system that can run somewhat independently (unless of course it depends on other microservices) and has a REST or queue processing interface.  Overall code encapsulation and separation of concerns have all been around for a long period of time.  Current evolution with containers, fast networks and REST API allows people to easily integrate pieces of their system using web se…