The Choice Floor Under Deadline Pressure
Meridian Insurance's claims-portal group has run three Disciplined Agile teams for 14 months. Team Atlas, seven people, delivers every two weeks and averages 38–42 story points. Over the last two quarters its defect-escape rate rose from 0.8 to 2.3 per 100 points, and the stakeholder demo has drawn only one business representative since March. The team lead proposes suspending retrospectives and demos for two quarters, arguing it recovers about six hours per iteration and protects a Q3 commitment of 12 features. The product owner supports the proposal; the business sponsor has already approved it informally and asks you, the enterprise coach, to 'make it work.' The team is not in crisis: builds are green, the backlog is refined two iterations ahead, and the last release met its date. Two newer teams copy whatever Atlas does.
1. The sponsor has approved suspending retrospectives and demos. Using DA's choice floor and principles, what do you decide, and why?
Read the worked answer
Do not approve. DA's choice floor is the minimum a team must keep regardless of life cycle; it includes delivering value frequently, reflecting and adjusting regularly, and making work visible to stakeholders. Retrospectives and demos are not optional ceremony overhead - they are the feedback loops that explain Atlas's rising escape rate. The data already show the cost of weakening them: demo attendance fell and defects escaped. Removing six hours per iteration treats a symptom (capacity) while increasing the risk behind the Q3 commitment. The DA principle 'be transparent' also argues against hiding progress from the business.
Approve the intent - protect the Q3 commitment - but reject the mechanism. Propose a two-iteration experiment: keep retrospectives, shorten them to 45 minutes with one focused improvement goal; replace the demo with a 30-minute outcome review showing working software against acceptance criteria. Measure defect-escape rate, demo attendance, and Q3 feature burn-up. If the experiment fails, escalate with data, not opinion.
2. The team lead says the team is mature and the choice floor is bureaucratic. How do you respond, and what would you measure to show the floor is earning its keep?
Read the worked answer
Acknowledge maturity: DA expects teams to tailor practices, and a mature team may use a 30-minute retrospective or asynchronous demos. But tailoring is not deletion; the floor preserves the outcome, not the format. Ask the lead to state which feedback loop replaces the retro and how the team will know it works.
Offer a 'floor with evidence' agreement: the team chooses the format, and for two iterations it reports three measures - defect-escape rate per 100 points, percentage of acceptance criteria reviewed with a business stakeholder before release, and one improvement action completed per iteration. If those hold, the coach stops attending. If they degrade, the team restores the prior format. This uses DA's guided continuous improvement: small, measurable experiments rather than a policy fight. It also protects the two newer teams that copy Atlas; if Atlas drops the floor, they will copy that too.
3. If the sponsor insists on the suspension, what is your escalation path and what do you put in writing?
Read the worked answer
Escalate on risk, not on compliance. Write a one-page decision record: the proposal, the evidence (escape-rate trend, demo attendance), the choice-floor implication, the alternative experiment, and the residual risk to the Q3 commitment. State clearly that suspending the feedback loops removes the team's ability to detect the quality problem that is already visible. Offer the sponsor a choice between the two-iteration experiment and accepting the risk explicitly, with a review date. If the sponsor still suspends, record the decision, the owner, and the trigger for reinstatement - for example, escape rate above 2.0 or a missed Q3 feature. Continue to measure without turning the measurement into surveillance. DA's transparency principle applies to the coach as well: document what was recommended and why.