After a Sprint Review, the Product Owner deems that the Product has come to the end of its life and the Product backlog can be closed. Next immediate step is
Scrum team's availability is communicated to stakeholders
My answer is B. Is it right??
Unsure where you retrieved this question from. Please be careful when taking sample assessments from web sites other than Scrum.org, or MLapshin, as other sites can misinterpret, or clearly misrepresent, what is Scrum.
Regarding your question, the Scrum Guide clearly states that a Product Backlog is never complete; therefore, there should never be a decision where the Product Owner declares the product "dead", and a Product Backlog is "closed".
If you were to look just at Scrum Ceremonies and the order they should occur, a Sprint Retrospective should take place after the Sprint Review. Answers A and C have absolutely nothing to do with Scrum.
The next step ought to be to extract as much value out of the work done in the Sprint as possible.
The Scrum Guide says, as long as product exists its backlog also exist.
Having said that, if the product has come to an end, so will it's backlog. Which could also mean that no new work will be done on this product and hence no further Sprints.
In such situation, there is no point in conducting a Retrospective meeting and trying to figure out improvements for next sprint (which doesn't exist in this case). Option 'b' is incorrect.
Regarding option 'c', Transition document (though Scrum guide has no mention about it) in case it is required it should be a part of 'Definition of Done' for that product. Since, sprint review is already done in this case, option 'c' is incorrect.
Considering provided choices, option 'a' is correct, so that the team could be utilized for other projects.
Still confused? Final answer would be ?
Odd question and answer choices, but probably a real life situation worthy of thinking about. I would pick B. Since I am assuming the Sprint was not canceled because there was a Sprint Review event, wouldn't it make sense that the Sprint still include the Retrospective event? While there may not be a future Sprint for this team related to the product they were building, wouldn't the team be able to take some learnings from that Sprint and use that in their next mission?
Tahir - What answer did the creators of this test question conclude?
But I will go by B.
Tahir, Where are you getting this question from?
This is a lot of nitpicking and confusion over a very poorly-conceived question.
Who could even conceive of a situation where a Product Owner pulls the plug on an entire product at the end of a sprint, with no advance notice or discussion?
Products may die (or be replaced), and associated product backlogs may be closed (or converted to another product backlog), but this would in all likelihood be a process that would lend itself to a smooth transition than depicted in the question.
And again, option A has nothing to do with Scrum! And sunsetting a product does not make a retrospective on the recently-completed sprint pointless. Retrospectives contribute to empiricism, and that dedication to continuous improvement does not stop if a product the team supports is dissolved.
it looks like it was taken from another sites' "SCRUM Master PSM I Certification Practice Quiz"
Looking over the question, and the example response, I'd be wary of relying too much on their quizzes and recommendations (they suggest option A is the best choice)
I came across this question today while preparing for PSM1. The question&Answer and their explanation is as follows.
After a Sprint Review, the Product Owner deems that the Product has come to the end of its life and the Product Backlog can be closed. The next immediate step is:
A. Scrum team's availability is communicated to stakeholders
C. Transition Documentation
They mentioned A is the right answer. and Below is its explanation.
Usually the Retrospective is the last event of a Sprint. However, when the Product Owner decides that the development work is over, there is no need for a Retrospective. The transition documentation is defined as part of the definition of “Done” if that transition documentation is a requirement for the Increment’s release. A “Done” Increment would already have the transition document created.
Thanks & Regards,
I do not think this situation is regulated by Scrum!
However, I believe this is a valid scenario, just rare: usually, we do not develop further a product which is about to sunset. It is way more likely that its development stopped years ago. When our 'product' is a solution used by our own organisation, it is even more likely that once the intended functionality is reached, we do not work on it more. Either way, this situation seemingly contradicts the Scrum Guide ("If a product exists, its Product Backlog also exists"), however, I believe this is rather just a semantic issue.
I believe there is no single good answer to this question because the best solution depends on factors we did not learn from the introduction of the scenario.
Third-party tests are good to discover our weak areas, but the suggested answers should not be accepted at face value.