In your experience, how long should a planning meeting (SCRUM) last? 8 hours? Or should it be shorter (succinct) and further discussions should be planned as part of the sprint (10 days sprint)?
|
|
According to the Scrum Guide:
That generally works for me. |
|||||||
|
|
As long as it needs to last, no less and no more. Anything else isn't Agile. If you have a team of 2 - 3 developers and are doing 1 week sprints anything more than a hour is probably counter productive. If you have a team of 15 people and 2 weeks sprints you are looking at all day, anything less isn't detailed enough. It takes experience to get it mostly right, and that is what retrospectives are for, the team decides what is too long or too short. Don't worry about getting it perfect or sticking to what some book says, try something and refine it. SCRUM is about refining the process in iterations as much as it is about refining your code in iterations. |
|||||
|
|
Do not mold your business around the process. The process supports your business. The moment you're doing process for its own sake it's time for the process to get the axe. To that end, there is no "right" way. Meetings should only go as long as you are accomplishing something in them. If it takes you 30 minutes or 4 hours, as long as it works then go with it. Ignore what some book/blog/coach tells you and do what is right for you. |
|||
|
|
|
Take as long as you need so that you select enough that your team thinks they can reasonably achieve in the sprint. But you should be spending time during the (previous) sprint refining the backlog: estimating and refining stories. From the Scrum Primer (PDF):
Doing this means you can focus on planning during planning, and it doesn't take all day and the team starts to lose focus and get bored. |
|||
|
|
