Move from team feeling to prioritized learning points, experiments, and verifiable change.
A focused improvement initiative with owner, hypothesis, and review date.
You can decide which improvement experiment the team tests next.
Run the experiment in daily work, review impact, and adjust working agreements as needed.
What affected the quality and effectiveness of the last Sprint, and which change will we inspect next Sprint?
Sprint Retrospective creates a framework to systematically reflect on working style and events.
Emotional signals are then explicitly collected and organized.
Which experiences made us mad, sad or glad, and which working condition do we want to change?
Mad Sad Glad makes team perception and emotional patterns visible without immediate judgment.
The patterns are then translated into concrete behavioral ideas.
What should the team start, stop, or deliberately continue doing?
Start Stop Continue formulates change as observable behavior.
The best change idea is then planned as a verifiable learning cycle.
Which small change will we test, what do we predict, what occurred, and how will learning enter the next cycle?
PDCA makes improvement visible through plan, do, check, and adapt.
The cycle sets owner, review date, and expected effect for the experiment.
Artifacts stay collapsed until you actually need them.
Plan the initial agreement, use, and review with clear ownership.
# Working Agreements: Worksheet
## Question
To be confirmed
## Desired outcome
To be confirmed
## Scope
Complete run
Time: 10 minutes of preparation and about 60 minutes for the first agreement; then ongoing use and regular reviews.
Complete this worksheet on paper or in your own document during the work.
## Preparation for this scope
### Method setup
- **Materials:** Shared document or board, individual work preferences, current friction examples, channel overview, and calendar.
- **Roles:** Whole team · facilitator · team lead as participant, not sole author · rotating agreement owner
- **Advance information:** Everyone notes working hours, focus time, feedback preferences, and current friction. The lead drafts at most communication and escalation questions, not finished rules.
- **Overall time needed:** 10 minutes of preparation and about 60 minutes for the first agreement; then ongoing use and regular reviews.
- **Setup:** Make existing rules visible, collect personal preferences silently first, and adopt only agreements the team can concretely try.
### Prepare for the work steps
#### Context: Bound friction
- Everyone notes working hours, focus time, feedback preferences, and current friction. The lead drafts at most communication and escalation questions, not finished rules.
#### Perspectives: Gather needs
- Bounded friction situations
#### Rules: Write observable norms
- Visible work preferences
#### Escalation: Clarify interfaces
- Observable team rules
#### Maintenance: Plan review
- Communication and escalation path
## Working agreements
### Hours and focus
When are we available, when do we protect focus, and which exceptions apply?
...
### Communication channels
Which channel serves which purpose and what response is expected?
...
### Feedback and decisions
How do we give feedback and where are decisions recorded?
...
### Blockers and escalation
When and to whom do we escalate?
...
### Review
When and through what process do rules change?
...
Collect personal preferences, then agree on a few observable rules for a trial period.
[Atlassian Working Agreements · original teaching example](https://www.atlassian.com/team-playbook/plays/working-agreements)
## Context: Bound friction
Expected artifact: Bounded friction situations
Bounded friction situations
Entry:
...
- [ ] Are friction points described as concrete situations without judging people?
## Perspectives: Gather needs
Expected artifact: Visible work preferences
Visible work preferences
Entry:
...
- [ ] Could everyone contribute work conditions and feedback preferences independently?
## Rules: Write observable norms
Expected artifact: Observable team rules
Observable team rules
Entry:
...
- [ ] Does each rule name a trigger and observable behaviour?
## Escalation: Clarify interfaces
Expected artifact: Communication and escalation path
Communication and escalation path
Entry:
...
- [ ] For urgent and non-urgent cases, are channel and escalation path clear?
## Maintenance: Plan review
Expected artifact: Reviewable agreement
Reviewable agreement
Entry:
...
- [ ] Can the team change rules that no longer work, and is the next review scheduled?
## Open questions and next steps
...
Method guide: https://methodatlas.meierhoff-systems.de/en/methods/working-agreements/run-sheet