Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

5
  • 2
    I'm not sure that "push back from the PM" is the most useful framing. The entire team, as a whole, should want to improve their process—that's what the retrospective is for—and all of the issues you've identified are great things to consider as part of that discussion, but I think it's most useful to think of it as "how can the team help ensure that the estimates provided by sprint goals are more useful in the future?" rather than a PM pushing back on the team for not accomplishing tasks. Commented Sep 21, 2019 at 0:20
  • 1
    I think you get to the heart of the problem. The PM has to bring this up its vital to understand why the project is late, but the #1 reason is going to be 'estimates were wrong' for whatever reason. (and #1 reason for that would be PM didnt like high estimates!) Commented Sep 21, 2019 at 8:50
  • To me, this is clearly the best answer so far. +1 Commented Sep 23, 2019 at 6:32
  • How about we refer to 'pushback' (which implies a potentially antagonistic approach) as "questions" which seems more neutral and effective to me? Commented Sep 23, 2019 at 11:05
  • 1
    @MichaelDurrant et al. Fair enough - I've modified the wording of the first paragraph. Commented Sep 23, 2019 at 11:50