Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
Mike Griffith’s book is one of the best resources and books I’ve read so far related to Agile. It does explain everything in simple details and it is a very comprehensive book. However, there is a difference between what the new Scrum Guide mentions and what ACP Exam Prep Book does with regards to the Scrum Ceremonies:
1- Definition of Sprint: In scaled scrum or Nexus, Product Backlog Refinement is an official event but not in scrum. Mike's books however mention this as an activity.
2- Daily Scrum: It is not a must to ask those 3 questions as per scrum guide but it is recommended while ACP Exam Prep mentions that the scope is limited to answering those 3 questions.
3- Scrum of Scrums is not a scrum terminology and when there are multiple teams, you go to Nexus (Scaled Scrum).
4- All events are time boxed but this is not mentioned in ACP Exam Prep.
5- Sprint Reterospectives is for the whole scrum team as oer the scrum guide but the ACP Exam Prep mentions that this is primarily for the Development Team.
In a way it is very contradicting so any thought as to why there is a difference in Items 1, 2 & 5 ? Saving Changes...
And since I did not even touch the Agile Practice Guide in preparation for the exam, it means Mike's book "PMI-ACP Exam Prep" was all that I needed to pass (and the Fastrack simulation). Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
May 15, 2018 1:31 AM
Replying to Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Oh yes I forgot to reference the timeboxed Daily Scrum in Mike's book. Also, I am one of the believers that the Retro is primarily for the Development Team. In fact I think the PO should stay the hell out of it most of the time. I do however think the Scrum Master should attend :-)
Sante, Not sure I fully agree with you on not involving the PO in the retrospective. This is an opportunity for the whole team to inspect and adapt :-)
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
May 15, 2018 2:17 AM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Yes there are two schools of thought on this Rami. Since the Scrum Master is responsible for ensuring the processes of Scrum are utilized, they really need to attend the Retro. The issues with the PO attending all the time is that a lot of the issues the Development Team have is with the PO. Absence, not answering questions, pressuring developers to push tasks through, or increasing velocity are just some of them. With the PO sitting face to face, many developers (just by their very nature) don't want to bring these topics up, which is why I lean towards not having them at the Retro. But if all developers can speak their mind, and the PO has no special influence with stakeholders (many of which could be line managers of the developers, so it's almost impossible they don't have such influence), then by all means the PO should come along. The other things is the Development Team can actually vito someone's attendance, since they make up the majority of the Scrum Team.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
May 15, 2018 1:35 AM
Replying to Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
Remember the formula guys:
Mike's Book + Agile Practice Guide + Fastrack = PASS the PMI-ACP exam
Don't get confused with other sources is my recommendation :-)
That is absolutely right and even if you are not sitting for the exam, it is worth reading the book like I am doing right now and not sure if I am willing to sit for the exam or maybe I will in the future. In summary, this book is a great reference. Saving Changes...
Sante, Not sure I fully agree with you on not involving the PO in the retrospective. This is an opportunity for the whole team to inspect and adapt :-)
Yes there are two schools of thought on this Rami. Since the Scrum Master is responsible for ensuring the processes of Scrum are utilized, they really need to attend the Retro. The issues with the PO attending all the time is that a lot of the issues the Development Team have is with the PO. Absence, not answering questions, pressuring developers to push tasks through, or increasing velocity are just some of them. With the PO sitting face to face, many developers (just by their very nature) don't want to bring these topics up, which is why I lean towards not having them at the Retro. But if all developers can speak their mind, and the PO has no special influence with stakeholders (many of which could be line managers of the developers, so it's almost impossible they don't have such influence), then by all means the PO should come along. The other things is the Development Team can actually vito someone's attendance, since they make up the majority of the Scrum Team. Saving Changes...
Alok PriyadarshiProject Manager| Tata Consulting Engineers LimitedJamshedpur, Jharkhand, India
Very informative end helpful. Thanks a lot. Saving Changes...
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
But if this happens then one of scurm pillars won’t exist which is transparency and the scrum values too like Openess and Courage.
The purpose of this reterospective is to inspect and adapt to resolve such issues.
...
1 reply by Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
May 15, 2018 4:33 AM
Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
It's one of those double edged swords. If a Scrum teams gets on well and the PO is an active team member then it can be an advantage. If the opposite is true, it can have the reverse effect. One quote I saw: "if the product owner being present at the retrospective is proving to be an impediment to the team feeling comfortable and exploring their situation, reflecting upon it and identifying ways to improve their process, then you could argue that the Scrum Master should remove that impediment." Certainly more people are in favor of the PO attending; like I said there are two camps. Perhaps to put it more succinctly: there are times when the PO should attend and there are times when the Development Team do not need the PO, depending on what is the focus of the retro (ie. more technical? more people orientated? more process orientated).
But if this happens then one of scurm pillars won’t exist which is transparency and the scrum values too like Openess and Courage.
The purpose of this reterospective is to inspect and adapt to resolve such issues.
It's one of those double edged swords. If a Scrum teams gets on well and the PO is an active team member then it can be an advantage. If the opposite is true, it can have the reverse effect. One quote I saw: "if the product owner being present at the retrospective is proving to be an impediment to the team feeling comfortable and exploring their situation, reflecting upon it and identifying ways to improve their process, then you could argue that the Scrum Master should remove that impediment." Certainly more people are in favor of the PO attending; like I said there are two camps. Perhaps to put it more succinctly: there are times when the PO should attend and there are times when the Development Team do not need the PO, depending on what is the focus of the retro (ie. more technical? more people orientated? more process orientated). Saving Changes...
I like the idea of part of the meeting just for the Development Team to nut out any issues and get in unison on those issues so it doesn't become a bashing session (if the PO is the target), and then perhaps the other section for the whole Scrum Team. Regarding transparency, the same can be said for the Daily Scrum? The Development Team can exclude the PO which is not exactly transparent.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
May 15, 2018 10:38 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
I hear you Sante but if this all is happening and the PO is considered an impediment then the team is not a healthy one and they should work on enhancing the relationships and this is I guess the Srum Master role to coach them.
Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
Rami, the problem is simple: what people said is Scrum is not Scrum. Scrum is a framwork and because of that the Scrum guide that not prescribes. It mean you will find what/when/who but you will not find the How. So, all you read as a component of Scrum is not a component of Scrum. That is the problem not only for the exam. Is the same when you tried to implement Agile practices and methods inside organizations. For example, User Stories. On the other side, one of the hardest items to prepare the PMI-ACP exam (at least in the past) was the ambiñguity of terms and the diffcult to understand about what method is the question. One clasic: all related to Sprint. So, perhaps today the key is to read the PMI Agile Practice guide.
...
1 reply by Rami Kaibni
May 15, 2018 10:39 AM
Rami Kaibni
...
You have a point Sergio. Thank you for your input.
Senior Projects Manager | Field & Marten AssociatesNew Westminster, British Columbia, Canada
May 15, 2018 4:39 AM
Replying to Sante Delle-Vergini, PhD
...
I like the idea of part of the meeting just for the Development Team to nut out any issues and get in unison on those issues so it doesn't become a bashing session (if the PO is the target), and then perhaps the other section for the whole Scrum Team. Regarding transparency, the same can be said for the Daily Scrum? The Development Team can exclude the PO which is not exactly transparent.
I hear you Sante but if this all is happening and the PO is considered an impediment then the team is not a healthy one and they should work on enhancing the relationships and this is I guess the Srum Master role to coach them.
Community Champion
