report:prm

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
report:prm [2026/06/14 18:15] – [3.10.11 Sprint 13 Outcome] team5report:prm [2026/06/14 18:22] (current) – [3.10.1 Sprint 3 Outcome] team5
Line 692: Line 692:
 In Sprint 3 we consolidated both the technical foundation of the project and the supporting documentation. The team completed all planned issues in Jira, with no carry‑over work. Key outcomes included updated structural drawings and schematics (V2), the cardboard model, and a refined selection of materials and components. We also advanced the digital side with Figma designs for the message application and progressed written deliverables such as the background/related work and eco‑efficiency measures. Routine work like daily meetings, the sprint retrospective, and logbook updates was completed, ensuring the project stayed aligned and well documented. In Sprint 3 we consolidated both the technical foundation of the project and the supporting documentation. The team completed all planned issues in Jira, with no carry‑over work. Key outcomes included updated structural drawings and schematics (V2), the cardboard model, and a refined selection of materials and components. We also advanced the digital side with Figma designs for the message application and progressed written deliverables such as the background/related work and eco‑efficiency measures. Routine work like daily meetings, the sprint retrospective, and logbook updates was completed, ensuring the project stayed aligned and well documented.
  
-  * **Why the velocity report/burndown looks like this:** Being our first sprint managed in Jira, the chart reflects initial planning chaos. The scope (red line) suddenly spiked mid-sprint because we committed the mistake of **scope creep**, adding major deliverables like the Cardboard Model and V2 designs on the fly instead of locking the backlog on day one.+  * **Why the velocity report/burndown looks like this:** Being our first sprint managed in Jira, the chart reflects initial planning chaos. The scope (red line) suddenly spiked mid-sprint because we committed the mistake of scope creep, adding major deliverables like the Cardboard Model and V2 designs on the fly instead of locking the backlog on day one.
   * **The Good and the Bad (Why we didn't complete 100%):** The bad habit was a prolonged flatline at zero due to last-minute status changes; the team was working in the lab but forgot to update Jira progressively. On the good side, a powerful final surge allowed us to bulk-update and close the core technical foundations just before the deadline.   * **The Good and the Bad (Why we didn't complete 100%):** The bad habit was a prolonged flatline at zero due to last-minute status changes; the team was working in the lab but forgot to update Jira progressively. On the good side, a powerful final surge allowed us to bulk-update and close the core technical foundations just before the deadline.
   * **Retrospective & Group Dynamic:** We realized that our initial estimations were pure guesswork due to a lack of historical data. For the next cycles, we officially banned adding any new tasks once a sprint is active and established a strict rule for real-time status updates.   * **Retrospective & Group Dynamic:** We realized that our initial estimations were pure guesswork due to a lack of historical data. For the next cycles, we officially banned adding any new tasks once a sprint is active and established a strict rule for real-time status updates.
  • report/prm.txt
  • Last modified: 2026/06/14 18:22
  • by team5