Who participates in the Nexus Sprint Review?

Last post 02:20 am May 16, 2020
by Olavo Alexandrino
5 replies
Author
Messages
09:52 pm May 14, 2020

Hi all!

In terms of the SPS exam. I have the following question: Who participates in the Nexus Sprint Review?

Let’s see what Nexus Guide says

Appropriate representatives from each Scrum Team. Then, each Scrum Team holds individual Sprint Retrospectives.”

Who does “The Nexus Framework for Scaling Scrum (The Professional Scrum Series)” book says (p. 66 and 67)?

The Nexus Sprint Review replaces the individual Scrum Team Sprint Reviews, and EVERYONE IN THE NEXUS ATTENDS, as well as any external stakeholders who are interested; even prospective customers or users may be invited.

The entire Nexus participates in the Nexus Sprint Review. This is their chance to show what they’ve achieved and to get feedback from stakeholders and other interested parties, to broadly share information, and to learn.

I know that in practice it is very peculiar. I would select and ask who are the most suitable members to attend the review.

But in terms of the SPS exam, what can be asked? What would be the right answer?

 

 

 

 

 

06:21 am May 15, 2020

Who participates in the Nexus Sprint Review?

Let’s see what Nexus Guide says

Appropriate representatives from each Scrum Team. Then, each Scrum Team holds individual Sprint Retrospectives.”

Sprint Reviews and Sprint Retrospectives are different events. It's important to distinguish between the two.

10:55 am May 15, 2020

The quote that you cite from the Nexus Guide is incomplete. The full section is:

Nexus Sprint Retrospective: Appropriate representatives from each Scrum Team meet to identify shared challenges. Then, each Scrum Team holds individual Sprint Retrospectives. Appropriate representatives from each team meet again to discuss any actions needed based on shared challenges to provide bottom-up intelligence.

The only place that your snippet appears is in the discussion of the Nexus Sprint Retrospective.

It's not clear to me if your concern is around who participates in the Nexus Sprint Review or the Nexus Sprint Retrospective.

Generally, I would go by the contents of the Nexus Guide rather than a book. Consider the most recent revision of the Nexus Guide, as of the time I'm writing this, was published in January 2018. The book you mention was published in December 2017. The writing was probably finished sometime in the middle of 2017, quite possibly 6+ months before the publication of the Nexus Guide. I don't want to dismiss all of the content in books, since there may be useful advice, or tips or techniques but it's not the best source for the latest rules of the game.

12:53 pm May 15, 2020

Hello!

I have made a little mistake regarding the place that I have copied who participates in what.

Only in "Nexus Sprint Planning" and "Nexus Daily Scrum" events it says "Appropriate representatives".

I am really sorry and thank you for correcting me!

Regarding the book,

"it's not the best source for the latest rules of the game."?

So, what is the best source? In my opinion, Nexus Guide is too simple to address all concerns that anyone should have in practice.

In addition, the book it is a formal document suggested by Scrum.org as material and as you read it, The Nexus Guide appears to be a subset of this.

Apart from my mistake of the original post, I couldn't find anything in the book that contradicts the guide.

03:59 pm May 15, 2020

So, what is the best source? In my opinion, Nexus Guide is too simple to address all concerns that anyone should have in practice.

In addition, the book it is a formal document suggested by Scrum.org as material and as you read it, The Nexus Guide appears to be a subset of this.

Apart from my mistake of the original post, I couldn't find anything in the book that contradicts the guide.

The best source of information is the Scrum Guide and Nexus Guide. Any other source may be good for suggestions or advice but should be treated as such. The rules for Scrum and Nexus are found in their respective guides, while other sources may provide valuable, real-world insights into some of the finer details or tips for maximizing the use of these frameworks in different environments.

If you ever do come across a contradiction between a book (or any source) and the most recent revision of the guides, then the guides should take precedence. The contradiction could exist for a number of reasons - perhaps the guides have been revised more recently or the author misunderstood the guide or...the list goes on. At the end of the day, the canonical source is the guide and everything else is supplemental.

02:20 am May 16, 2020

The best source of information is the Scrum Guide and Nexus Guide. Any other source may be good for suggestions or advice but should be treated as such. 

May be good?

So, I understand your point of view by arguing that the Guides are “the best” source. On the other hand, it depends on which definition of “best” you are using.

I would say that both Scrum Guide and Nexus Guide should be considered as start point of knowledge. They focus their content about “what”. They do not care to define “how”, nor “why”. You will have to gather these extra needs outside them.

That is the point that I have argued above.

There is no way for any aspirant that never heard (or has few knowledge or experience) about Scrum or Nexus to take, and pass on PSMs and SPS exams without taking a close look at extra source of information or knowledge.

To me, “the best” is the set of knowledge that provides you the right content to pass in a specific exam. Then Scrum Guide and Nexus guide, definitely, are not enough. You will need more. That’s why I usually disagree with some definitions of “best”.

I would say the same about the PSK certification that is entirely based on the work of Daniel Vacanti. Vacanti’s books would never been considered as “something derived or only suggestion”. It is fundamental. If you do not know that work (or similar works from other ones), you will know nothing about flow metrics.

In addition, there is nothing related to “what” precedes “what”, it is interrelated to what supplements what. I prefer the holistic approach to the deterministic one.