To Retro or not to Retro
I was wondering about the following:
Lets say there is an issue. When does a Scrum Team decide to wait for and discus it in the Sprint Retrospective and when does it need to be addressed immediately?
Does the Development Team feel that the issue may affect their ability to achieve the sprint goal? If so, then it should be discussed immediately, and not have to wait for the Retrospective. (critical)
If the issue is non-critical, it is up to the team whether to address it before or at the Retrospective. An assessment of team capacity and progress towards the sprint goal are a couple weighing factors for making a decision to discuss now or wait until later.
Thanx, sounds logical
Inspection and adaptation should occur as close as possible to the time and place of issue. This is as true in Scrum as it is in any other lean or agile way of working. Failure to do this incurs waste. There's nothing in Scrum which says remedial action for an issue must delayed until a formal event such as a Sprint Retrospective.
let me ask you a rhetorical question: if there is an issue in your family, or in your car or in your gang, when should it be addressed? The answer, of course, is: when appropriate, taking into account the severity, the context, the settings, the people's traits and other factors.
Scrum retros are mandatory events because an improvement process is considered critical and they are an attempt to enforce it in the typically stressful environment where they may very easily be omitted. As Ian mentioned, there is no reason why issues cannot be handled early on.
Hope this helps,