A sprint change every two weeks is exhausting. Sprint Review, Sprint Retro and then Sprint Planning. This all costs a lot of time and nerves. If the sprints were three or four weeks long, these "sprint change meetings" would take a lot less time. This or something similar usually begins a dangerous change of an established Scrum process without illuminating the counterarguments. The assumption that you save time sounds plausible at first, but on closer inspection, the time savings are not so high, because the Sprint Review and Sprint Planning alone take much longer if the sprint duration increases.
Longer sprints are the path to the dark side
Longer sprints are the path to the dark side
Longer sprints are the path to the dark side
A sprint change every two weeks is exhausting. Sprint Review, Sprint Retro and then Sprint Planning. This all costs a lot of time and nerves. If the sprints were three or four weeks long, these "sprint change meetings" would take a lot less time. This or something similar usually begins a dangerous change of an established Scrum process without illuminating the counterarguments. The assumption that you save time sounds plausible at first, but on closer inspection, the time savings are not so high, because the Sprint Review and Sprint Planning alone take much longer if the sprint duration increases.