RE: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach
- OK, let me clarify this a little.Yes, the PO can stop the project if it is no longer feasible. Yes, the PO can disassemble the team, if it cannot deliver the results he needs. But then, maybe he should have looked a bit harder (and without the pink shades) at the realities that exist.I insist that the PO cannot tell the team HOW they deliver what he is asking them to deliver.The knuckle rapping was meant to be verbal, not literal. And surely any good Scrum Master will try and negotiate first and cajole, persuade, whatever he can conjure up. The underlying motto here should be: a dead Scrum Master is of no use to anyone.Having said that: if the PO cannot be made to see the light of the day, then you have a lose/lose situation anyway. And that might just be the right time to cut your losses.Regarding Pierre's comment that they really have to deliver on the 1st of January: Scrum always delivers on time. The questions simply is: what will be delivered? And it is the PO's job to figure out what are the most important bits to deliver.Here you have a situation where Scrum simply blows the covers off completely.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: 03 December 2007 20:32
Subject: [scrumdevelopment] Re: Product Owner as Scrum Coach
--- In scrumdevelopment@ yahoogroups. com, "Wolfgang Schulze Zachau"
<wolfgang@.. .> wrote:
> if Scrum is done properly, then the PO has no say into how the team
> their stuff.
You mean "no say" other than nixing the project because it is no longer
feasible given the estimates that the team delivered? Or (if the PO is
also the business owner) nixing the team and starting over with a new
team? (admittedly one that will be set up for failure from day 1)
>In other words: in this case the PO deserves to have his knuckles
While a rapping of the knuckles is sure to be communicative, it might be
better to have a sit down and explain *why* the team is defining DONE as
including tests etc. It shouldn't be too difficult to explain in a way
that makes good business sense... particularly since it *does* make
good business sense to test properly right?