Re: [scrumdevelopment] Product Owner overtasked by Scrum?
- IMHO, any reasonable size project would not allow "The Product Owner" to perform "All UAT Testing" herself as well as specify "all of what the system should be".Product Owner is supposed to one point contact for the team for feedback, prioritization and explanation. She can rely on a battery of testers, analysts, marketing executives if she feels like that.I am a Product Owner and my team consists of analysts and marketing people. I treat my role as one where I know everything that has gone, should go and is going on in my product. I do know that the product will become huge in not so near future and then "my product" will be a part of "overall product" - but thats a problem for another day.Thanks
--- On Thu, 1/1/09, Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...> wrote:
From: Adam Sroka <adam.sroka@...>
Subject: Re: [scrumdevelopment] Product Owner overtasked by Scrum?
Date: Thursday, January 1, 2009, 4:49 AMOn Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Ron Jeffries <ronjeffries@ acm.org> wrote:
> Hello, Adam. On Wednesday, December 31, 2008, at 12:18:05 PM, you
>> Well, I think the PO is responsible for "acceptance" . However, it
>> would be nice if we involved an actual user somewhere... and maybe
>> someone who knew a thing about testing... This is why, in the XP
>> community, we stopped talking about "Customer" as a singular entity
>> and started saying "Whole Team." Quite a while ago, in fact ;-)
> Customer is a Role. Whole Team is a practice. They aren't
Customer is a role. "Onsite Customer" /was/ a practice. Whole Team is
a newer practice which was borrowed from LSD. Once "Whole Team" was
introduced as a practice we stopped talking about "Onsite Customer" as
a practice, because "Whole Team" better captured what we were trying
to say. It's true, nonetheless, that a lot of us used to think of
"Customer" as an individual representative on the team, and many of us
don't think of "Customer" that way any more.
"Product Owner" is much the same. "Product Owner" is an individual on
the team. The need to represent "Customer" is bigger than that one
individual, however, and I think that the Product Owner is the final
gatekeeper of that but the "whole" Scrum Team is responsible.
- I think that who attends the retrospective should be more a function
of the particular history, culture and personalities of the people
than be a hard a fast role-based rule. It's the goal that matters.
The goal is to "inspect and adapt" and that everyone must be heard
(and safe) so that we can discover what is working and what is not
As servant leader, I have found that it helps the development team if
I provide the structure so that the strong personalities do not drown
out the meek ones. At the same time, we may want to exclude those non-
developers who might inhibit open conversation (but with an eye to
correct this over time so that the culture evolves). Eventually, we'd
like to see the rest of management and the PO team as silent
observers where everyone securely feels we are all on the same side
helping each other and pulling in the same direction. But Utopia was
not built in a day.