6.3. Reviews
Last updated
Last updated
At the end of a Sprint, the finished work is reviewed with the stakeholders and discussed in a (Sprint) Review. The team works together with the stakeholders to gather feedback on the work product as the outcome of the Sprint. The Review helps to show deviations from expectations, where adaptations are needed, and where requirements were not communicated clearly enough. For example, this may include the structure or formatting of the output (e.g. a legal document such as a contract) but also topics the client misses or sees as superfluous. At the same time, the Backlog can be changed to adapt to new requirements.
Especially when working with clients, the requirements of what is needed can change over the course of a project, like a trial. Within the team of a law firm, the Review helps you communicate better what you expect from your team and force yourself, as the attorney responsible, to define what is important to you in any Item. This may be anything from the formatting of legal documents to the way a contract is structured.
After getting Alice’s approval for the draft, Fiona sends Eric, owner and boss of Eric’s Electro Builders, a letter detailing the claims Horizontal Builders have based—thereby finishing another Item (“Write the claim letter”). As Caleb’s project management was professional, she is able to refer to delay notices and similar formalised communication between Horizontal Builders as general contractor and Eric’s Electro Builders as subcontractor and counterparty. She equally outlines the potential damages in case of further delays.
The reply comes swiftly. Eric is willing to meet, initially without legal support by himself, but he announces that he’d contest the claims and even bring counterclaims to the table. Informing their client Bob, Fiona tasks Oliver with organising the meeting, including Caleb, Eric and Fiona but no one else from the team, given that they do not want to make this initial meeting too big.
Besides discovering that Eric also deemed to have claims, they quickly find that Eric, too, seems to have an interest in advancing quickly. The meeting is scheduled in two days.
During their meeting, Eric extensively describes where he deemed that the project was off plan, namely the HVAC company, who was directly contracted by Bob’s builders. According to Eric, they messed with the sub-distribution cabinets, both in the central infrastructure area of the building as well as in two localised places. The last topic of the meeting is particularly sensitive as Eric’s Electro Builders is responsible for the overall safety and would thus need to recheck everything. That will unavoidably lead to delays and an increase in cost in the project—both not Eric’s responsibility. He estimates the additional cost at 30,000 Euros.
Bob presents Horizontal Builder’s position, notes that he is surprised as the contractors are all companies they have been working with for years, but that they will certainly consider Eric’s version. He asks Eric whether he has material to underline his position. Eric promises to provide them in due course.
After Eric leaves, they ask their junior associate Gabriel to join them to discuss their findings, asking him to start creating Tasks based on the meeting minutes which Fiona writes. Gabriel, who had read eagerly about Agile, suggests that this would usually be part of a Review meeting, so they first have a look back at the finished work to have a joint starting point. Fiona briefly presents the Items that have been completed and Alice agrees that the work was delivered as needed but that the fact-finding Epic might need to be added to, based on Eric’s information. Alice expressly asks their client for feedback about the work outcome provided so far as part of the Agile methods, but it still feels a bit awkward to them. So far, the client is happy, but both Bob and Caleb are curious to get a better understanding of whether Eric’s claim has any merit and if it will surface something they previously missed. Especially the HVAC company’s alleged activity seems somewhat strange to Caleb. The team remembers they have an overview of all relevant persons involved, the stakeholder map, and that they should update it based on the latest findings.
Participants
Alive, Fiona, Gabriel, Oliver Bob, Caleb Optional: other stakeholders
Frequency/ Duration
Weekly after team meeting, with client, if needed
Present the finished Items:
Item 1. Meet the client to get the big picture of the case.
Item 2. Draw an overview of all parties involved in the case, including their position and relevance.
Item 3. Identify the people able to provide detailed information on relevant issues and interview them.
Item 4. Discuss with the client the expected position of the counterparty.
Feedback regarding the delivered work: Item 1: Done. Item 2: Add new parties according to the new information. Item 3: Add new parties and interview them. Item 4: Done.
Preview to the next Sprint: • Assess new evidence regarding HVAC company. • Revisit Items 2 and 3.
Participants
Team (attorney and team), Client, Optional: other stakeholders
Frequency/ Duration
Once per Sprint, max 1h per for each week in the Sprint
Present the finished Items:
Feedback regarding the delivered work:
Preview to the next Sprint:
