Forums

By posting on our forums you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.

Please note that the first and last name from your Scrum.org member profile will be displayed next to any topic or comment you post on the forums. If you have left the first and last name fields blank on your member profile, your email address will be displayed instead.

All user-submitted content on our Forums may be subject to deletion if it is found to be in violation of our Terms of Use. Scrum.org does not endorse user-submitted content or the content of links to any third-party websites.

Question on availability and quality statements
Last Post 10 Jun 2014 09:15 AM by Ludwig Harsch. 3 Replies.
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
Sort:
PrevPrev NextNext
You are not authorized to post a reply.
Author Messages
michael
Basic Member
Basic Member
Posts:132
michael

--
05 Jun 2014 12:43 PM
    Hi all SM and potential SM,

    This is not a trick question, from the question I would simply like you to
    provide the answer to
    Part A: which is the "least" suitable and why.
    Part B: which is the "most" suitable, and why.


    Q: The least and most ineffective time for updating the quality statement and
    declaring Sprint availability for the next Sprint is.

    A: Daily standup (sticking to the 15 minute time box)

    B: Sprint Retrospective

    C: Sprint review

    D: Sprint Planning

    There is a logic in why I'm asking, its not because I don't know the answer.
    I would just like to show that the rest of the community cant be wrong either, next week.
    Entries close Monday midday, good luck with the question, its a tough one.

    For inexperienced SM this is not a question in any exam you will get, have a go anyway.
    For experienced SM this is an actual decision someone made, this may be a tough one.

    Michael
    Ian Mitchell
    Veteran Member
    Veteran Member
    Posts:1495
    Ian Mitchell

    --
    06 Jun 2014 08:01 AM
    I don't know the answer. The question contains two references that don't make sense to me:

    1) "quality statement". This could refer to the Definition of Done, but if so, I don't understand why the correct term has been avoided.

    2) "declaring Sprint availability for the next Sprint". I'm not sure what is meant by "Sprint availability". If this means whether or not the next Sprint will happen at all, then the sooner the team receive this information the better (they needn't spend time refining the Product Backlog if there are to be no more sprints). On the other hand, if it refers to a declaration of team availability (capacity) for the next Sprint, then in Scrum you wouldn't provide such a thing. It is of course reasonable to state an opinion of the *likely* capacity for future sprints if asked. However, a declaration of Sprint availability that is sufficient for Sprint Planning purposes can only be made for the current sprint, and even then it is still merely a projection. This can be evidenced by the Scrum Guide which states, under "[Sprint Planning] Topic One: What can be done this Sprint?", that one of the inputs is "the projected capacity of the Development Team during the Sprint".
    michael
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:132
    michael

    --
    06 Jun 2014 03:19 PM

    Ian,

    Let me rephrase it to scrum, not the version of scrum this comes from.
    *potential capabilities
    *demonstrates the work that it has “Done”

    Michael

    Ludwig Harsch
    Basic Member
    Basic Member
    Posts:272
    Ludwig  Harsch

    --
    10 Jun 2014 09:15 AM
    Michael,
    I am totally confused.
    potential capabilities: Do you mean projected capacity? -> Sprint Planning (least ineffective) and Daily Standup (most ineffective)
    demonstrates the work that it has "Done" -> Sprint Review (least ineffective) and Sprint Planning (most ineffective)
    But what does this have to do with updating the quality statement and declaring Sprint availability?
    You are not authorized to post a reply.


    Feedback