Ilja Preuss wrote:And I'm proud to say that in the company I work, "retrospective" invokes positive connotations. With other words, I don't think that there is one single term that works for everyone - you will always have to adjust to your audience...
I'd bet quite a lot that I can easily find someone for whom "process improvement initiative" is a read flag!
Mary Poppendieck wrote:Really good agile teams are ALWAYS improving how things are done.
Jeff Langr wrote:I've always liked the idea of promoting agile retrospectives as opportunities to devise experiments for forthcoming iterations (and releases). Hypothesize, plan the experiment, collect and analyze data, adapt. Whatever they're called, retrospective meetings need to produce concrete and measurable action items.
Paul Wallace wrote:Do people have patterns or templates that they follow in retrospectives? Rather that sitting down for a group moan where the only question is something to the effect "What needs fixed?", are there specific questions that need to be asked?
Mary, you said, Agile teams ALWAYS improve things, i see that agile teams or people should have certain qualities to be selected with to be with specific attitude and behavior to apply, or can the change be applied for normal traditional people and still give positive results in being agile team member?
Mary Poppendieck wrote:Southwest Airlines looks very hard for people that are outgoing and love helping other people.
Since you mention incentives, can you provide some thoughts on what you've found to be positive incentives?
what i meant by Traditional people in our context was Traditional workers, who do not want to know new approaches like lean or agile and terrified of changing anything they used to do in some way to another.