39309Re: Plans are there for planning
- Jun 21, 2009hello Dan,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Dan Rawsthorne <dan.rawsthorne@...> wrote:
> Actually, since your CEO is holding the SM accountable for the team's
> progress, it is clear that your SM is actually your PO, who you call
> your PO is actually just a stakeholder... if the SM can deflect the
> CEO's questions over to the PO, that would be better. If he can't, then
> the SM is actually the PO
Deflecting is easy in my situation but because PO won't accept the responsibility from a failure, new PO (then known as SM) will carry the burden.
> Anyway, I see nothing wrong with the CEO's questions. These are what
> you'd expect him to ask. Your SM has just been given the opportunity to
> educate the CEO about scrum. It is a gift. Treat it as such.
CEO actually interested in the outcomes and doesn't want to get surprised by impediments. They want us to do whatever it takes. Doesn't care we use scrum or not. So this is another impediments which very hard to solve...
> BTW, now that we know that the SM is actually the PO, the team better
> figure out who their SM is so that the original SM can start working
> with the CEO in his role as PO.
I have domain knowledge and experience in our industry even more than CEO itself, but much or less equal to PO. Being a PO, I think it will force me to work w/in the market directly or w/the stakeholders from marketing and other related management divisions etc. This is a danger for me in the current situation because I am also facilitating the team in technical aspects mostly.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>