<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>team velocity on Agile Software Development</title>
    <link>https://agilesoftdev.com/tags/team-velocity/</link>
    <description>Recent content in team velocity on Agile Software Development</description>
    <generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://agilesoftdev.com/tags/team-velocity/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>What Sprint Planning Looks Like When Throughput Has Doubled</title>
      <link>https://agilesoftdev.com/what-sprint-planning-looks-like-when-throughput-has-doubled/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 02 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      
      <guid>https://agilesoftdev.com/what-sprint-planning-looks-like-when-throughput-has-doubled/</guid>
      <description>Velocity was always a flawed proxy for progress. Teams learned to game it, inflate it, and defend it in ways that had little to do with delivering value. AI-assisted development has not fixed the underlying problem — it has made it worse, and in doing so forced a more honest conversation about what sprint planning is actually for.
When individual developer throughput increases significantly — and for many teams working with AI coding tools, the increase in raw output is real — the assumptions baked into story point estimation break down.</description>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>
