Fresh Perspectives on Scrum from Daily Experience
Every time I read the Scrum Guide, I discover a new angle — not because the Guide changed, but because experience changes how we understand it.
From my day-to-day work, a few new ideas came to mind that could add value to future editions of the Guide:
1. Knowledge Debt
A concept similar to Technical Debt, but related to missing or siloed knowledge within the team. It fits naturally under Scrum Artifacts, especially within Product Backlog refinement, because it reflects gaps in information that slow down development.
2. Indirect Value Stream
Recognizing the value a team creates beyond the product itself. This concept aligns well under the Product Goal, as it helps broaden how we visualize value — not only direct product value, but the wider impact the team delivers.
All while keeping the core of Scrum unchanged.
I’d love to hear from others: have you observed similar concepts in your Scrum experience? How do you track or address “Knowledge Debt” or “Indirect Value Streams” in your teams?
It's best to treat knowledge debt as a kind of technical debt. If the Definition of Done stipulates that knowledge sharing and/or documentation has to happen, for example, then the issue can be managed. Remember that technical debt is any work that should have been Done but hasn't been, for whatever reason.
The Product Owner is accountable for Product value, whether it be direct or indirect. A good PO will take into account all of these things so value delivery is optimized for stakeholders each Sprint.
Thank you, Ian, for your comment. I’d like to clarify a few points:
1. Knowledge Debt ≠ Technical Debt
- It’s about missing or unevenly shared knowledge, not code shortcuts.
- It affects team speed and decisions even if technical work is done.
- Many Agile teams track it separately to improve performance.
2. Indirect Value Streams
- Direct value = customer-facing product.
- Indirect value = improved workflow, reduced risk, team skill growth.
- Recognizing it helps optimize outcomes beyond the Increment.
3. Naming Matters
- Makes the issue visible, measurable, and actionable
Hi Ekhlas,
Take a look at evidence-based management.
This approach considers the 'ability to innovate' (A2I) and 'time to market' (T2M) to be also key values.
A2I refers to everything that enables the team to produce something genuinely new. This includes knowledge management.
T2M, on the other hand, covers everything that enables the team to deliver faster while maintaining the same quality.
Does this reflect your approach?