Often, when I’m working with teams that are familiar with Scrum, they find the concept of cadence new. It is surprising as they are using cadences, except they do it in a specific, fixed way.

Let’s start from what most Scrum teams do, or should do. They build their products in sprints or iterations. At the beginning of each sprint they have planning session: they groom backlog, choose stories that will be built in the iteration, estimate them etc. In short, they replenish their to do queue.

When the sprint ends the team deploys and demos their product to the client or a stakeholder who is acting client. Whoever is a target for team’s product knows that they can expect a new version after each timebox. This way there is a regular frequency of releases.

Finally, at the very end of the iteration the team runs retrospective to discuss issues and improve. They summarize what happened during the sprint and set goals to another. Again, there is a rhythm of retrospectives.

Then, the next sprint starts with a planning session and the whole cycle starts again.

It looks like this.

All practices – planning, release and retros – have exactly the same rhythm set by the length of timebox. A cadence is exactly this rhythm.

However, you can think of each of practices separately. Some of us got used to the fact that frequency of planning, releases and retrospectives is exactly the same, but when you think about this it is just an artificial thing introduced by Scrum.

Would it be possible to plan every second iteration? Well, yes, why not? If someone can tell in advance what they want to get, it shouldn’t be a problem.

Would it be a problem if we had planning more often then? For many Scrum teams it would. However, what would happen if we planned too few stories for the iteration and we would be done halfway through the sprint? We’d probably pull more stories from backlog. Isn’t that planning? Or in other words, as long as we respect boundaries set by the team, wouldn’t it possible to plan more frequently?

The same questions you can ask in terms of other practices. One thing I hear repeatedly is that more mature teams change frequency of retrospectives. They just don’t need them at the end of every single sprint. Another strategy is ad-hoc retro which usually makes them more frequent than timeboxes. Same with continuous delivery which makes you deploying virtually all the time.

And this is where the concept of cadence comes handy. Instead of talking about a timebox, which fixes time for planning, releases and retrospectives, you start talking about a cadence of planning, a cadence of releasing and a cadence of retrospectives separately.

At the beginning you will likely start with what you have at the moment, meaning that frequencies are identical and synchronized. Bearing in mind that these are different things you can perfectly tweak them in a way that makes sense in your context.

If you have comfort of having product owner or product manager on-site, why should you replenish your to do queue only once per sprint? Wouldn’t it be better if the team worked on smaller batches of work, delivering value faster and shortening their feedback loops?

On the other hand, if the team seems mature frequency of retros can be loosened a bit, especially if you see little value coming out of such frequent retros.

At the same releases can be decided ad-hoc basing of value of stories the team has built or client’s readiness to verify what has been built or on weather in California yesterday.

Depending on policies you choose to set cadences for your practices it may look like this.

Or completely different. Because it’s going to be adjusted to the specific way of working of your team.

Anyway, it is likely, that the ideal cycle of planning, releases and retrospectives isn’t exactly the same, so keeping cadences of all of these identical (and calling them iteration or timebox) is probably suboptimal.

What more, thinking about a cadence you don’t necessarily need them to be fixed. As long as they are somewhat predictable they totally can be ad-hoc. Actually, in some cases, it is way better to have specific practice triggered on event basis and not on time basis. For example, a good moment to replenish to do queue is when it gets empty, a good moment to release is when we have a product ready, which may even be a few times a day, etc.

Note: don’t treat it as a rant against iterations. There are good reasons to use them, especially when a team lacks discipline in terms of specific practices, be it running retros or regular deployments. If sprints work for you, that’s great. Although even then running a little experiment wouldn’t hurt, would it?