Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

17642ongoing peer feedback

Expand Messages
  • Christophe Louvion
    Nov 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Trending committed story points vs. done at the end of each iteration is a great feedback to the whole (taking too much on, getting stuff actually "done" etc).
      We also have the retrospective: sharing the good, bad and ugly helps the team be aware as a group of their current issues. You can only fix problems you know about.
      Really well jelled teams will tackle any issues, including individual issues. Nobody runs without making mistakes.
      But sometimes, team members are not providing much feedback to each other (new to agile, cultural thing etc).
      One of my team is of the latter type. They will only discuss simple issues and table some hard discussions involving resurrent troublemakers -- chickens do not participate to retros.
      To break the mental barrier to providing feedback about people, a suggested idea was to run anonymous quick peer reviews at the end of each iteration (maybe with a 1 to 5 score), and provide everyone on the team with their personal average peer score and the total team average, so they can be made aware of the other teams member feeling about them while comparing themselves to the rest of the team (without not knowing anything else about anyone in particular). The assumption being that someone getting bad reviews over and over by his team will do something about it, or at least not be surprised when the team decides to reject him/her.
      Has anyone done something like this? How did it go?
      Any alternatives for helping team members speak their mind during retros?
      Thank you

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic