| Course | MT247 Agile and Scrum Methodologies |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Retrospective design |
| Length | About 890 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT247 Unit 9
Fourteen Actions, Two Done: A Unit 9 Retrospective Design for a Team That Stopped Holding Them
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT247: Agile and Scrum Methodologies
Unit 9 Retrospective Design
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Larkspur Residential, its app team, the facilitator and every figure are composite and illustrative; the sources cited are real.
Why Retrospectives Stopped
The team held retrospectives for its first six Sprints and then dropped them. The record explains why. Six sessions produced fourteen action items: improve code reviews, write better stories, talk to the vice president about mid-Sprint changes and eleven more. Two were completed. The rest had no owner, no date and no place in the next Sprint's work, so they were forgotten by the following week. After Sprint 6 the Developers said the meeting was a waste of time, and the development manager agreed.
The Scrum Guide describes the Retrospective as the event where the team plans ways to increase quality and effectiveness, and notes that the most impactful improvements may be added to the next Sprint Backlog (Schwaber & Sutherland, 2020). Larkspur's retrospectives produced lists, not plans.
The Agenda
The session runs ninety minutes, half the Guide's three-hour maximum for a one-month Sprint, scaled to the team's two-week Sprints. It follows the five stages Derby and Larsen (2006) set out for retrospectives.
Set the stage, 5 minutes: the facilitator states the goal, choosing at most two improvements for Sprint 16, and asks each person for one word describing Sprint 15. Output: everyone has spoken once.
Gather data, 25 minutes: the team builds a timeline of Sprint 15 on the wall, marks blocked days from the impediment log and reviews the list of fourteen earlier actions with their status. Output: a shared picture of what happened.
Generate insights, 25 minutes: Circles and Soup, then five whys on the top item. Output: one or two root causes the team can act on.
Decide what to do, 25 minutes: the team proposes actions, votes and keeps at most two, each with an owner, a first step and a check. Output: two items for the Sprint 16 Backlog.
Close, 10 minutes: a return-on-time-invested vote, each person rating the session from one to five. Output: feedback on the retrospective itself.
Materials
The facilitator brings a printed timeline of Sprint 15 with dates and events already marked from the team board; the blocked-days chart from the impediment log for Sprints 12 to 15; the list of fourteen earlier actions with a column showing done or not done; three concentric circles drawn on a large sheet for the insights stage; and voting dots.
Circles and Soup
Circles and Soup sorts every issue the team raises into three rings. The inner ring holds what the team controls, such as review habits and work in progress. The middle ring holds what the team can influence, such as the Product Owner's time for refinement. The outer ring, the soup, holds what the team must accept for now, such as the security review's four-day duration. The point of the activity is to stop the team spending its two actions on things it cannot change, which is where many of the fourteen earlier actions went. After sorting, the team runs five whys on the inner-ring item with the most blocked days.
An action the team cannot carry out is a wish, and fourteen wishes made the meeting look useless.
Rationale: The Outside Facilitator
The team's Scrum Master is also the development manager who writes the Developers' annual reviews. Developers are unlikely to speak openly about their own habits, or about his, in a session he runs. For this retrospective a Scrum Master from the company's billing system team will facilitate. She has no reporting relationship with anyone in the room. The development manager attends as a participant. Derby and Larsen (2006) stress that a retrospective depends on safety, and a neutral facilitator is the quickest way to provide it until the Scrum Master role is separated from line management.
Rationale: Two Actions at Most
Fourteen actions in six sessions is more than two per session, and almost none were done. Limiting the team to two forces a choice. Each action must have an owner, one named Developer or the Product Owner; a first step that can start on the first day of Sprint 16; and a check that shows whether it worked, such as review wait times below four hours for the whole Sprint. Rubin (2012) recommends treating improvement actions as real work, sized and placed in the Sprint Backlog, rather than as promises held outside it.
What Success Looks Like
The design will be judged after three retrospectives, not one. If it works, the team will have chosen at most six actions across Sprints 15 to 17 and completed at least four, and the return-on-time-invested votes will average above three. If actions are still left undone, the facilitator will ask at the next session why, which is itself a useful insight.
Rationale: The Follow-Up Rule
The two actions are added to the Sprint 16 Backlog at Sprint Planning, next to product work, and the Daily Scrum checks them like any other item. The next retrospective opens with their status. An action that is not done is either carried forward with a reason or dropped by decision, never left to fade.
References
Derby, E., & Larsen, D. (2006). Agile retrospectives: Making good teams great. Pragmatic Bookshelf.
Rubin, K. S. (2012). Essential Scrum: A practical guide to the most popular agile process. Addison-Wesley.
Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum guide. https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html
The Purdue Global MT247 Unit 9 instructions
Unit 9 asks students to design a Sprint Retrospective for a team, with an agenda, materials and the reasoning behind each choice. The prompt usually expects stages with timings, an activity and output for each, and a total within the Guide's timebox for the team's Sprint length. Base the design on the team's history: if past retrospectives failed, say why and design against that failure. Consider who should facilitate and whether participants can speak safely. Limit actions to what the team can complete, give each an owner and a check, and say how they will be followed up. Four pages in APA 7, with a one-page agenda, is typical.
How this MT247 Unit 9 example is built
The design opens by explaining why retrospectives stopped, fourteen ownerless actions with two done, and contrasts that with the Scrum Guide's view of improvements entering the Sprint Backlog. The agenda lists five stages with minutes, activities and outputs, under a margin note on fixed outputs. Materials are listed. A section explains Circles and Soup, sorting issues by control, influence and acceptance, with the highlighted line about wishes. Three rationale sections follow: an outside facilitator for safety, with Derby and Larsen; a two-action limit with owners and checks, citing Rubin; and a follow-up rule that opens the next session with the last actions' status. A short section sets success after three sessions, under a final note.
MT247 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Retrospective designs earn credit for a structured agenda within the timebox, activities matched to the team's problems, attention to safety and a mechanism for follow-through. Instructors reward designs that respond to the team's history rather than picking a popular format. Each stage should have a purpose and an output. Choosing a facilitator who allows honest discussion shows understanding of the conditions a retrospective needs. Limiting actions, assigning owners and placing them in the Sprint Backlog demonstrates that the design aims at change, not discussion. A way to judge whether the design worked, and accurate citations, complete the rubric. Materials prepared in advance, such as a timeline already marked from the team board, show the session will spend its minutes on insight rather than recall.
Common MT247 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common weakness is an agenda copied from a template with no link to the team's problems. Another is a session that produces a long list of improvements and no owners. Some designs ignore safety, leaving a manager to facilitate a discussion about the team's own habits. Others exceed the timebox or leave no time to decide actions. Make sure the stage minutes sum correctly and the deciding stage has enough minutes to settle owners and checks rather than running out of time. Describe how your team's retrospectives have gone, and a writer can design an agenda that answers that history and builds in follow-through.
Get an MT247 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
If earlier retrospectives produced actions nobody finished, say so, because that history shapes the design more than any format. Describe the team or paste the case, then attach the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. The first design is free inside 24-48h, timed stage by stage, with a follow-through rule someone could check. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT247 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT247 Unit 1: Discussion Board Post
- MT247 Unit 2: Framework Explanation
- MT247 Unit 3: Role Analysis
- MT247 Unit 4: Backlog Ordering Exercise
- MT247 Unit 5: Estimation Exercise
- MT247 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- MT247 Unit 7: Sprint Planning Artifact
- MT247 Unit 8: Impediment Analysis
- MT247 Unit 10: Adoption Assessment
- MT246 Unit 9: Status Report
- MT245 Unit 9: Assumption and Constraint Log
- MT243 Unit 9: Measurement and Reporting Plan
- MT242 Unit 9: Crisis Communication Memo
MT247 Unit 9 questions, answered
Which retrospective format is best?
None in general; the format should fit what the team needs to examine. Start, stop and continue suits a quick check, a timeline suits a Sprint with a dramatic event, and Circles and Soup suits a team spending energy on things outside its control. The example chose Circles and Soup because the impediment log showed most lost time sitting outside the team.
Can improvements from a retrospective go into the Sprint Backlog?
Yes. The 2020 Scrum Guide says the most impactful improvements are addressed as soon as possible and may even be added to the Sprint Backlog for the next Sprint. The example uses that allowance deliberately, because actions kept in a separate document were forgotten. In the backlog they are visible at every Daily Scrum and compete for time openly.
Why limit the session to two actions?
Because the team's history showed many actions producing almost no change, and ownership thins as the list grows. Two actions that happen beat fourteen that do not. The limit is a design choice, not a rule from the Guide; some teams manage three. The example explains its limit using the two-in-fourteen record, which makes the choice defensible rather than arbitrary.
Where can I find a free MT247 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds the complete MT247 Unit 9 retrospective design. It restarts retrospectives for an app team with a ninety-minute five-stage agenda, an outside facilitator and a limit of two owned actions.
Why does the MT247 Unit 9 sample use an outside facilitator?
The team's Scrum Master also writes the Developers' annual reviews, so they are unlikely to speak openly in a session he runs. A Scrum Master from another team with no reporting link provides safety.