Sprint Review opportunities
Hello there,
some time ago I participated in the PSPO course and did the PSPO I.
Now that I have gained some experience as PO, I am preparing for the PSPO II.
In the folder from the course I read:
"Sprint Review 'Inspection' reveals opportunities:
[...]
- Ask for a Sprint to implement the demonstrated functionality, alone or with increments from previous Sprints"
I don't understand this sentence. Why would you implement functionality that you already demonstrated in the Review? If it was demonstrated, it should already be implemented, as implementation should be part of the DoD...
And doesn't an increment always include all previous increments?
And why do you ask for an extra Sprint? Isn't it default to start the next Sprint immediately after the last?
Help would be appreciated.
Best,
Ludwig
Hi Ludwig,
The sentence you quoted makes no sense to me.
My only explanation is that ‘implement’ and ‘demonstrated’ have been swapped in error.
In that case the intended sentence might have been:
- Ask after (not for!) a Sprint to demonstrate the implemented functionality, alone or with increments from previous Sprints
Which makes perfect sense.
===
I am also considering PSPO II. But I noticed that only 58 people have passed this assessment. So I wonder who is really eligible to give this training and if it has market recognition.
If a DoD is inadequate, then functionality that has been demonstrated may remain unimplemented in a release-ready environment. An opportunity to implement a potentially releasable product increment which has this functionality may then be evident in the Sprint Review.
This remedial increment would not necessarily have to be an end-of-Sprint one. The PO could ask the team to implement an ad-hoc increment during a Sprint in order to provide the missing (but already demonstrated) functionaility. In so doing, it would be out-of-sync with the product Increments from previous Sprints, although it would still be a cumulative one.
I don't have the PSPO material and I don't really know the context, so I'm just guessing at the interpretation. I agree that the wording seems odd.
@Christiaan: I like your explanation. It makes sense. I think we have 2 main points here:
- After each Sprint we must have a demonstrate of implemented functionality
- Demo alone if new functionality quite independent or make sense to run alone. Otherwise, we should integrate them with increments from previous Sprints for demo because maybe full business flow should be shown, etc.
BTW, I have another way to correct this sentence:
"'Ask for a Sprint to implement the demonstrated functionality,..."-->"For a Sprint we must do the demonstration about functionality..."
That mean in this case "implement" just is DO demo, not about coding, testing and so on.
Hi Ba Luu,
Your last sentence brings me another interpretation of
“Ask for a Sprint to implement the demonstrated functionality, alone or with increments from previous Sprints”
Some methods use a user interface mock-up to agree on functionality between users and development. That could be regarded as a demo before implementation.
But I’m pretty sure this is not part of a PSPO II course. My guess is that the sentence is written down in error.
Hi guys,
thank you for your answers. I'm glad not to be the only one struggling with this sentence.
I take home from this discussion that this sentence probably is either
1) an error (maybe they don't mean the finished, but the planned functionality) or
2) assuming an inadequate Scrum implementation (DoD not complete etc).
My guess is 1) but maybe someone from Scrum.org can clarify.
Christiaan, there are several trainers who offer the PSPO training. PSPO II is however the name of the certificate, not of the training. You can look here to find a course near you: http://courses.scrum.org/classes/title/professional-scrum-product-owner
Best, Ludwig