What I liked about it:
  • the concept of abuser stories
  • hands on use case to compare different techniques --> dot voting
  • a lot of room to experiment
  • good overview of usability of techniques of the end
  • good format : makes you think
  • your help during the exercises: clarified & added value
  • giving a different view on requirements using 4 axes
  • new techniques learned
  • interactive
  • highly interactive
  • interaction
  • leuke oefeningen
  • goed begeleid
  • the groups to practice with non-functional requirement
  • 1,5 hrs to spend on thinking on combinations of techniques and NFR
  • interaction
  • you get to try out known techniques in a new context
  • nice interaction
  • confortable atmosphere to discuss the techniques
  • dot voting
  • content
  • concrete techniques
  • different perspectives of 3 experts
  • concrete cases
  • good to learn about different techniques
  • good discussion
  • definition of done on user story niveau AND sprint niveau
  • topic: non-functionals are not often discussed in agile
  • abuser stories
  • feedback from other groups
  • good example application
  • excellent descriptions of techniques
  • the setup of the session
  • the dots helped pulling out a good discussion
  • good exercices
  • good interaction
  • discussion after hands-on
  • interaction
  • context
  • way of defining acceptance criteria
  • interactive
  • learned new ways for techniques
To make it perfect:
  • retrospectives were not that great because it's difficult to estimate the good & the bad when you haven't done the technique
  • explain exercises more concise
  • more copies of material per table
  • a bit more exploration before, about the techniques instead of only on paper
  • some hints to think about (like the verifiability, but more)
  • I would give some more different use-cases as you get more familiar with the technique after 3 times the same use-case but with different techniques
  • give hard cases with how they were tackled
  • present more clearly what is being asked
  • you can never cover all the possible techniques in 90 minutes
  • a little more theory
  • limit quality aspects and techniques so not everyone chooses the same
  • more background
  • wat meer uitleg hoe het in het scrum proces zou kunnen 'embedden'
  • don't allow people to interfere in the plenary. they make too much background noise
  • faster
  • more info/tips upfront
  • end with samples for paycento
  • a bit more dynamic from the presenter
  • more time: i want to handle more cases
  • divide techniques/aspects yourself. not by choosing
  • some concrete advice/take away from experience
  • roadmap (how do you recommend we apply/proceed with these)
  • more theory about the techniques
  • force groups to take specific combinations to get more balanced voting
  • the techniques are related to each other
  • how do you integrate the technique in the product backlog and user stories
  • war stories of how you have used these in real life
  • some more detailed theoretical insight about the different techniques. use images for explanation.
  • explain a bit more the different techniques
  • hands-on took too much time. but at the other hand it helped to "feed" the discussion
  • "force" more to use different scenarios
  • review done by expert