How should the team address poor internal quality when stakeholders are happy?
Tests whether you protect transparency when stakeholders are happy but quality is poor. Answer: At Review, expose the increment's real state—low transparency causes risky decisions; at Retro, inspect why quality degraded and adapt the process.
WHAT IT TESTS: Whether you uphold Scrum empiricism by making internal quality visible rather than hiding it behind stakeholder happiness. ANSWER OUTLINE: At the Sprint Review, expose poor internal quality because low transparency causes risky decisions; stakeholders need this to adjust ordering. At the Retrospective, inspect the process deviations that degraded quality and adapt practices to prevent recurrence. RED FLAG: Sparing stakeholders and silently fixing quality later conceals artifact transparency and destroys empirical control.
Read the original → scrumguides.org
- #scrum
- #agile
- #transparency
- #sprint review
- #empiricism
Get five bites like this every day.
Tezvyn delivers a daily feed of 60-second tech bites with quizzes to lock in what you learn.