Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [scrumdevelopment] Product Owner overtasked by Scrum?

Expand Messages
  • David H.
    ... Hash: SHA1 ... For a sensible and precise interchange of information to happen the Product Owner does not have to be present for the Retrospective. That
    Message 1 of 37 , Jan 1, 2009
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
      Hash: SHA1



      2009/1/1 Ron Jeffries :
      > Hello, Marko. On Wednesday, December 31, 2008, at 7:03:16 AM, you
      > wrote:
      >
      >> Retrospective Meeting is not mandatory for PO, probably the most of
      >> this meeting will be about tech details, few about organization and
      >> few about human issues, but by my opinion visiting these meetings
      >> bonds in Scrum Team would be deeper.
      >
      > Some issues that seem quite common in retrospectives, bearing on the
      > PO:
      >
      > - had too much to do;
      > - did not clearly understand story;
      > - did not know how to test story;
      > - could not find anyone to ask a question;
      > - story was done but could not demo it,
      > when demo'd turned out to be wrong;
      >
      > Software development using Scrum is a dance involving PO and
      > developers. Retrospecting half the pair doesn't really cover the
      > important stuff.
      >
      For a sensible and precise interchange of information to happen the
      Product Owner does not have to be present for the Retrospective.
      That has nothing to do with hiding information or not trying to be
      open and honest, this is simply a matter of streamlining the amount of
      data being shared.
      One of the key ingredients of any retrospective is to come up with a
      very precise "plan" on the key issues the team feel they need to
      improve most on. Many teams I know use S.M.A.R.T and that seems to
      work well for them. If there is a root cause for a particular such
      goal which is nested with the Product Owner it can be shared very
      precisely and quickly by only addressing that particular point.

      I am all for exploratory communication and I believe that passive
      observation of a third parties communication flow can yield enormous
      insight, however that is not the thing that should be happening in a
      Retrosoective.
      I am passionate about retrospectives and I respect their value, as
      mentioned before in the past six years I have never had a PO directly
      attend a Retrospective and so far it all has worked out pretty well
      for those people I either consulted for or worked with as an employee.

      Your mileage will vary, I can only state that this has worked very
      well for me.
      On a side note, this does not mean I "isolate" the PO. Frequent, open
      and honest communication is encouraged on a day to day basis, just not
      in the Retrospective.
      > Ron Jeffries
      > www.XProgramming.com
      > www.xprogramming.com/blog
      > A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. -- Paul Simon
      >
      >



      - --
      Sent from gmail so do not trust this communication.
      Do not send me sensitive information here, ask for my none-gmail accounts.

      "Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
      benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu


      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (Darwin)
      Comment: http://getfiregpg.org

      iEYEARECAAYFAklc2TAACgkQpQyy99TdtVcMMgCZAVmILpUzW2E86w9VC95XmKVU
      qd4AoK7RrtMjq0B/1tWTh7hwcqwSDZR7
      =UuwN
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    • Michael Wollin
      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
      Message 37 of 37 , Jan 4, 2009
        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
        working.

        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.

        Michael
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.