🪴 (plotted plant) | Literature note |

Sprint Review Anti-Patterns



  • Moreover, how did the previous Sprint contribute to our Scrum team’s mission?
  • Selfish PO: Product Owners present “their” accomplishments to the stakeholders.
  • “Acceptance” by the PO: The Product Owner uses the Sprint Review to “accept” Product Backlog items that
  • Unapproachable PO: The Product Owner is not accepting feedback from stakeholders or the Developers.
  • Death by PowerPoint: Participants of the Sprint Review are bored to death by PowerPoint.
  • Sprint Review is “show, don’t tell,” or even better: let the stakeholders drive the discovery.
  • Instead, make it interesting enough that everyone wants to participate.
  • Undone is the new “done:” More often than not, the Developers show work items that are not “done.”
  • There is no Sprint Review, as the Developers did not meet the Sprint Goal. (A rookie mistake. Particularly in such a situation, a Sprint Review is necessary to create transparency with stakeholders and inspect the Increments that the Developers nevertheless managed to accomplish.)
  • Tell a compelling story at the beginning of the Sprint review on the task the Scrum team ventured out to accomplish and engage the stakeholders with that narrative.
  • No stakeholders: Stakeholders do not attend the Sprint Review.
  • To my experience, you need to “sell” the event within the organization, at least at the beginning of using Scrum.)
  • No customers present: External stakeholders—also known as customers—do not attend the Sprint Review.
  • Passive stakeholders: The stakeholders are passive and unengaged.


Enjoy this post? Buy me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Notes mentioning this note