The Sprint That Kept Slipping
A team of four students is building a quiz app over six weeks for an assessed project. They chose an iterative approach with one-week sprints. After three sprints, they have completed 40% of the planned features but used 60% of the time. Their board shows many tasks 'in progress' and few 'done'. Daily stand-ups run 25 minutes because members debate design. The client (their teacher) has not seen a working build since week one. One member has been absent for a week with illness. The team insists they will 'catch up in the last two sprints' without changing scope.
1. Diagnose the project's problems using evidence from the setup, and explain why 'catching up later' is unlikely.
Read the worked answer
Diagnosis:
- Velocity gap: 40% of features in 60% of time implies a shortfall; extrapolating, they will not finish scope in remaining time.
- Work-in-progress: many tasks in progress and few done indicates poor flow and context switching; unfinished work hides risk.
- Stand-up dysfunction: 25-minute design debates mean the stand-up is not serving its purpose; design should move to a separate session.
- No feedback: the client has not seen a build since week one, so assumptions are unvalidated.
- Capacity risk: one member absent reduces available effort; the plan does not reflect it.
Why 'catch up later' is unlikely: The trend is measured, not hypothetical. Without scope change, process change, or added capacity, the same rate produces the same shortfall. The final sprints also carry integration and testing load, which typically slows feature work, not speeds it up.
2. Recommend specific changes to scope, process, and stakeholder communication, and justify the priorities.
Read the worked answer
Scope: Re-baseline with the client. Identify a minimum viable set of features that can be finished and tested by the deadline; move the rest to a 'future work' list. This is honest and protects quality.
Process:
- Limit work in progress so tasks reach 'done'.
- Timebox stand-ups to 10 minutes; park design debates in a follow-up.
- Adjust capacity for the absent member and re-plan the remaining sprints against measured velocity, not hope.
Communication: Demonstrate a working build to the teacher weekly, even if small, to get feedback early and keep the assessment evidence current.
Justification/priorities: Scope adjustment comes first because it is the only lever that reliably closes a measured gap without sacrificing quality. Process changes raise throughput but cannot be assumed to double it. Communication protects the relationship and surfaces risk while there is still time to act. Promising to catch up without these changes would be a plan based on optimism, not evidence.