Sorry about that. As you wrote, the quizzes, pauses, and links don't work on this KZbin version. The full version with working quizzes is free (no registration) at ScrumTrainingSeries.com/

Thank you for letting me know. I'm thinking of adding some quiz questions or narrator explanation to help clarify the learning objectives. Would that help? Also let me know which things were unclear so I can know where to make changes.

@@MichaelJamesSeattle you don't give the answers to the questions or discuss the reasoning I feel giving these answers will not remove the need for your service, in fact will give customers more of a reason to require your services I'm a somewhat outsider as a developer, I have been doing scrum and agile type processes in my own businesses but when encountering these topics of scrum and agile in other organizations confused the hell out of me After reviewing where these practices came from and how they are being used,.I can still see a tremendous disconnect and the loaded terminology is a huge barrier All this requires a new vocabulary now bc of the tremendous amount of confusion that businesses have around these ideas After looking at all your cartoons, I have many suggestions about improvement If you want a deeper dive, please let me know

These were not originally made for KZbin. The KZbin versions may not show the correct answers for long enough. The full version at scrumtrasiningseries.com/ (for example scrumtrainingseries.com/SprintRetrospectiveMeeting/ ) give feedback on the quiz answers. Those are also free, no registration needed.

In this series, end users/customers participate in the Sprint Review. At the Sprint Review we learn from their feedback and adjust the Product Backlog based on what we learn together. Though not shown in the video, in LeSS the user also participates in Product Backlog Refinement, as described here: less.works/less/framework/product-backlog-refinement . The team is welcome to invite users to Sprint Planning, though it's not commonly practiced. I will make this more explicit in future versions.

Yea human politics are always in play and on its own revert back to comfortable ways of work Which involve a lot of delays and pushing responsibility off so no one makes the “big mistake” and loses their cushy job

The name "Scrum Master" turns out to be very problematic.

Could be, yes. PO is the "ultimate point of responsibility", not a workhorse. They're the captain of the ship - they have the responsibility that we have the right cargo and are taking it to the right place. The rest of the crew take care of the details within that overarching goal and priorities. AND help the PO when they spot something that might endanger the ultimate goal. Or when they spot something even more valuable than we thought of so far. So these additional stakeholders (SME's, managers, customer service people, sales, marketing, etc.) are usually very important key people for the PO and the team(s).

There's so much communication overhead in current organisations that we can move some of that to inter-team communications without adding anything :). But, there's a few things here I can touch in "more concrete" comments. First, "I" don't divide the responsibilities, I'd let the teams divide (and re-divide as needed) them. I'm sure one big concern they would have is specifically the amount of coordination overhead. So I'd let them decide it. This of course requires that all teams have a view of the whole and understand the purpose of what we're doing. So I'd make sure the PO and the management share that info and ensure teams understand it. Given that I know how much team members usually hate unnecessary meetings and want to get things done, I'm pretty sure they'll figure out good ways. This, of course, doesn't have to happen entirely without any guidance or support. The larger the organisation, the more likely some amount of team specialization is. And that's not a bad thing in and of itself. Specialization allows efficiency of action, in many situations. It becomes bad if it calcifies and becomes a power play, or it's used as an excuse to not do something that needs to be done. Even within a team, we have specialists - someone who is good at coding, someone good at testing, and so on - but they still work towards a single goal and are allowed to change and optimize the way they work to be as effective as possible. The goal would be to have similar collaboration between teams.

None of this is taught in any public school so the big issue is getting top down buy-in of the scrum way of working. Most business people do not understand any of this and will try the relabel roles game and revert back to waterfall with extra steps

Rule of thumb: if it's a HOW question, it's the responsibility of the [development] teams. If they discover the shared work before the Sprint starts, they could plan how they will coordinate during less.works/less/framework/sprint-planning-two . During the Sprint, they would use patterns such as these: less.works/less/framework/coordination-and-integration

scrummaster.jp/articles もお薦めです。

続きの動画はまだ製作中ですが、下記のリンクも参考になれば幸いです。 scrummaster.jp/articles less.works/jp/less/structure

I hope the video helped you feel less alone with that problem.

Me too especially the POs ending up being TOOs, hopefully helps me avoid some icebergs in future and things to watch for.

Business people confuse software development with traditional product manufacturing They don’t understand it takes much longer to design software than to “manufacture” it. With software manufacturing is now free. All that is left is design And design is not manufacturing Very few business people can make this distinction

I don't think most large companies are serious about becoming adaptive, learning organizations. I wonder whether they'll be able to compete in the future.

One.

@@MichaelJamesSeattle One per product, or one per org?

@@RichardKernNZ One per product. But the point is, one person who ultimately decides and has the ultimate authority. They may be lots of people supporting that work. But they are stakeholders or team members, not PO's. Smart PO's leverage that support and don't try to decide on every single decision. They just make sure the ship is sailing to the right destination (goal and alignment).

Thanks Ahmed.

Most of the times I see this, the person acting as PO is some kind of intermediary instead of the actual business decision maker.