HKSM

A time-boxed meeting held at the end of a product release to inspect how the release was planned and delivered and to identify improvements for future releases. Facilitated by the Scrum Master with the Product Owner, Scrum Team, and relevant stakeholders, it focuses on process, quality, flow, and value outcomes. The result is a prioritized, actionable set of improvements to apply in the next release.

Key Points

• Tool/Technique in SBOK used after a release is completed or canceled.
• Time-boxed, data-driven, and facilitated by the Scrum Master.
• Looks across multiple sprints to find release-level patterns, not just sprint issues.
• Uses techniques like 5 Whys, fishbone diagrams, dot voting, and silent brainstorming.
• Produces a small, prioritized list of actionable improvements with owners and due dates.
• May update Definition of Done, working agreements, and process policies for the next release.
• Captures lessons learned and feeds organizational knowledge bases.

Purpose of Analysis

The meeting analyzes how well the release met goals for scope, schedule, quality, and value delivered. It identifies systemic causes of delays, defects, rework, or misalignment with customer expectations and translates insights into practical changes for the next release.

It promotes continuous improvement across planning, coordination, integration, and deployment activities that span multiple sprints.

Method Steps

1. Prepare: Scrum Master schedules the session, gathers data (release burndown, velocity trends, defects, customer feedback), and defines the time-box and agenda.
2. Set the Stage: Clarify goals, working agreements, and a blameless mindset; confirm attendees and scope covers the entire release.
3. Gather Data: Review release objectives, backlog items delivered, value realized, quality metrics, incidents, impediments, and stakeholder input.
4. Generate Insights: Use 5 Whys, fishbone, and Pareto to find root causes and patterns across sprints and handoffs.
5. Decide Actions: Brainstorm improvements, then prioritize with dot voting; limit to a few high-impact items.
6. Plan and Assign: Define clear actions (what, owner, due date, success measure) and update policies like Definition of Done if needed.
7. Close and Share: Summarize decisions, publish minutes and lessons learned, and ensure improvements are tracked in the team’s improvement backlog.

Inputs Needed

• Release goals, Release Plan, and scope delivered (epics, features, user stories).
• Release burndown chart, velocity trends, cycle time/lead time metrics.
• Quality data: defects by phase, defect leakage, escaped defects, rework rates, test coverage.
• Customer and stakeholder feedback (NPS/CSAT, support tickets, adoption metrics).
• Summaries from Sprint Reviews and Sprint Retrospectives across the release.
• Impediment Log, risk register entries, and change requests affecting the release.
• Current Definition of Done, acceptance criteria standards, and deployment checklists.

Outputs Produced

• Prioritized, actionable improvement list for the next release, with owners and due dates.
• Updates to Definition of Done, working agreements, and policies (e.g., branching, test automation gates).
• Lessons learned documented and shared to organizational knowledge bases.
• Updates to risk and impediment logs reflecting systemic issues discovered.
• Recommendations for tooling, training, or process changes (e.g., CI/CD, integration cadence).
• Follow-up plan to track improvement implementation and success measures.

Interpretation Tips

• Look for cross-sprint patterns (e.g., integration bottlenecks) rather than isolated incidents.
• Balance qualitative feedback with quantitative metrics to avoid bias.
• Translate causes into specific changes to policies, workflows, and DoD to make improvements stick.
• Limit improvement actions to a manageable number and make them measurable.
• Invite the right stakeholders to validate customer impact and adoption signals.
• Compare planned vs. realized business value to refine backlog prioritization practices.

Example

A team completes a quarterly release delivering several high-value features. Metrics show defect spikes after integration and delayed UAT feedback.

In the Retrospect Release Meeting, the team applies 5 Whys, identifies environment drift and late test data as root causes, and agrees to add automated end-to-end tests in CI, freeze environment configs, and schedule mid-sprint stakeholder demos. The DoD is updated to require test data readiness and an integration build pass before calling a story done.

Pitfalls

• Allowing blame or opinion-driven debates without data.
• Producing too many actions with no owners or deadlines.
• Skipping updates to DoD and policies, so improvements do not persist.
• Inviting the wrong audience or excluding key stakeholders.
• Failing to track and verify that actions improved outcomes in the next release.
• Focusing only on sprint-level issues and missing cross-team or integration problems.

PMP/SCRUM Example Question

A Scrum Team has finished a major release. To improve the next release, what is the most appropriate primary output of the Retrospect Release Meeting?

1. A fully detailed plan for the next release with fixed scope and dates.
2. A prioritized list of actionable process and policy improvements with assigned owners.
3. An updated Product Backlog with additional features requested by stakeholders.
4. A sign-off document confirming all user stories met acceptance criteria.

Correct Answer: B — A prioritized list of actionable process and policy improvements with assigned owners.

Explanation: The meeting focuses on continuous improvement at the release level, producing a small, actionable set of changes for the next release. It is not meant to fix scope/dates, add features, or serve as acceptance sign-off.