Should sprint cycles be every 2 weeks or 4 weeks? Our team uses 2 weeks and I feel as though itโs too short. Almost every sprint tasks gets carried over because of the are out for review (even for senior engineers) and sprint planning and retrospectives every two weeks seems redundant. Any thoughts?
Three-week sprints seems to be the sweet spot. Two weeks is too short, four is too long. Have been a scrum master for years, so Iโve tried all options :)
I think your gang needs to level up your planning game. 4 weeks until you get feedback is too long if you canโt even plan for 2 weeks.
Change my mind- sprints are just ways to get developers to deliver in 2 weeks what normally takes longer even if done with half decent engineering.
Sure. Show up daily to talk about what you'll do. Forces you to do something everyday. Why not?
For two weeks to work there has to be lot of work to be done in the background. Like backlog should be groomed in advance for 3-4 cycle. Grooming involve priortization,clarification. The story should be ready to go once in sprint. Offxourse there are overlapping parts to it but this is bare minimum to keep the pace for 2 week sprint.
No no no, you misunderstand. The backlog is where tasks go to die. If you pull from there you digging up graves man. Not nice
Backlog is the pool of stories which needs to be worked upon in future. This can be new enhanment or a bug to be fixed.
If itโs every 4 weeks itโs a marathon and not sprint ๐ ๐๐๐
2 weeks sprints are just a big PM conspiracy.
3 week seems ideal to me. Shorter sprints carry a lot of overhead.
Ya 2 week is too short. Would love to be at big tech companies that don't use agile. Are there any?
Yes you need smaller tasks if you can't get them coded and reviewed in 2 weeks. Why not discuss this at the retrospective every two weeks? 4 weeks is too long. Especially when your reasoning is you can't estimate nor review code in a timely manner.