Scrum SPS Practice Test - Questions Answers, Page 2

PBI 2 is the most concerning because it involves a cross-team dependency within the same Sprint, which can create challenges and risks for the integration and delivery of the product increment. According to the Online Nexus Guide1, dependencies should be minimized or eliminated as much as possible, and if they exist, they should be made transparent and resolved as early as possible. Cross-team dependencies within the same Sprint can cause delays, conflicts, rework, and waste, and reduce the quality and value of the product increment 234.

The other answers are not correct for the following reasons:

A . PBI 2, because it has the most dependencies. This answer is not accurate because PBI 2 does not have the most dependencies, but only one dependency with PBI 1 from Team Red. PBI 3 has the most dependencies, as it depends on PBI 1, PBI 2, and PBI 4. However, PBI 3 is not as concerning as PBI 2, because its dependencies are not within the same Sprint, but across different Sprints. This means that PBI 3 can be refined and planned in advance, and the teams can coordinate and communicate their work more effectively 5.

B . PBI 1, because it is on the top of the Product Backlog. This answer is not relevant because the position of PBI 1 on the Product Backlog does not indicate its level of concern, but its priority and value. The Product Backlog is ordered by the Product Owner based on various factors, such as business value, risk, complexity, and dependencies. PBI 1 may be on the top of the Product Backlog because it is the most valuable or urgent item, or because it is a prerequisite for other items, but it is not necessarily the most concerning item 6.

C . PBI 1, because it is the first piece of work with a dependency. This answer is not true because PBI 1 is not the first piece of work with a dependency, but the first piece of work that other items depend on. PBI 1 does not have any dependencies itself, but it creates dependencies for PBI 2, PBI 3, and PBI 5. Therefore, PBI 1 is not as concerning as PBI 2, because it does not depend on any other item, and it can be completed independently by Team Red 5.

According to the Nexus Guide1, the Nexus Sprint Review is an event where the Nexus presents the Done Integrated Increment that was built over the Sprint and collects feedback from the stakeholders. The Integrated Increment is the combined work of all the Scrum Teams in the Nexus that meets the Definition of Done. The Nexus Guide also states that the Nexus Integration Team is a specialized Scrum Team that provides services and guidance to the Scrum Teams in the Nexus to ensure that the Integrated Increment is produced every Sprint.

In the scenario, the teams are not using a shared environment, which implies that they are not integrating their work frequently and effectively. This means that there is no single Integrated Increment that can be inspected and adapted by the stakeholders. This also suggests that the Nexus Integration Team is lacking or nonexistent, or that it is not fulfilling its role of facilitating integration and resolving dependencies. Without a Nexus Integration Team and a shared environment, the Nexus cannot deliver a valuable product Increment that meets the Product Goal.

The Sprint length and the integration phase are not relevant to the scenario. The Sprint length is determined by the Nexus based on the complexity and uncertainty of the product, and it should be less than a month. The integration phase is not a separate phase in Nexus, but a continuous activity that happens throughout the Sprint. Therefore, A and B are not correct answers.

The best way to improve the ability of the Scrum Teams in a Nexus to produce an Increment for the next Sprint is to reduce the amount of work that the teams pull into the Sprint. This will allow the teams to focus on delivering a high-quality and valuable product Increment that meets the Definition of Done and the Product Goal. Reducing the amount of work also reduces the complexity and dependencies among the teams, which makes integration easier and faster.

The other options are not advisable for the following reasons:

Asking the Nexus Integration Team to extend the Sprint to allow more time for integration is not consistent with the Scrum principles and values. The Sprint length should be fixed and consistent throughout the product development, and it should be less than a month. Extending the Sprint would compromise the feedback loop, the transparency, and the adaptability of the Nexus 11.

Reducing the number of Scrum Teams to reduce complexity is not a viable solution, as it would also reduce the capacity and the productivity of the Nexus. The number of Scrum Teams in a Nexus should be based on the size and the scope of the product, and it should not exceed nine teams 11. Reducing the number of teams would also disrupt the existing team dynamics and collaboration.

Adding another Scrum Team to the Nexus to increase capacity is not a good idea, as it would increase the complexity and the dependencies among the teams. Adding another team would also require more coordination and communication, which would consume more time and resources. Moreover, adding another team would not necessarily increase the value or the quality of the product Increment 22.

The best option for how Product Ownership might be structured in a company with five products is to have one Product Owner responsible for each product or one Product Owner responsible for all five products. Both of these options are consistent with the Scrum Guide, which states that the Product Owner is accountable for maximizing the value of the product resulting from the work of the Scrum Team 11. The Product Owner may delegate work as needed, but they remain accountable for the value delivered. The Product Owner also provides clarity to the team about the product vision, goal, and backlog 11.

The other options are not advisable for the following reasons:

Assigning as many Product Owners as needed to communicate expectations and requirements to the Scrum Team is not a good idea, as it would create confusion, inconsistency, and conflict among the Product Owners and the Scrum Team. The Scrum Guide states that the Product Owner is one person, not a committee 11. Having multiple Product Owners for one product would compromise the transparency, the alignment, and the decision-making of the Scrum Team.

Having one primary Product Owner and one Product Owner for each product is also not a good idea, as it would create a hierarchy and a dependency among the Product Owners. The primary Product Owner would have too much authority and responsibility, while the Product Owners for each product would have too little. This would undermine the accountability, the collaboration, and the empowerment of the Product Owners and the Scrum Teams.

The best way to help the two teams that are continually dependent on each other to manage their work is to ensure the appropriate representatives from both teams are present during Cross-Team Refinement. Cross-Team Refinement is an optional event in Nexus that allows the Scrum Teams to collaborate and coordinate on the Product Backlog items that have dependencies or require integration 11. By having the representatives from both teams present during this event, they can identify and resolve the dependencies, clarify the requirements, align the expectations, and plan the work for the next Sprint. This will improve the transparency, the quality, and the value of the Integrated Increment.

The other options are not advisable for the following reasons:

The Nexus Integration Team should not be responsible for integrating the work of these two Scrum Teams, as this would create a bottleneck and a hand-off. The Nexus Integration Team is a specialized Scrum Team that provides services and guidance to the Scrum Teams in the Nexus to ensure that the Integrated Increment is produced every Sprint 11. However, the Nexus Integration Team is not accountable for the integration of the work of the individual Scrum Teams, as this is the responsibility of the Scrum Teams themselves 22.

Reorganizing these two Scrum Teams so that one is responsible for development and one is responsible for integration is not a good idea, as this would create a silo and a separation of concerns. The Scrum Teams in a Nexus should be cross-functional and self-organizing, meaning that they have all the skills and abilities to deliver a potentially releasable product Increment every Sprint 11. Separating the development and the integration tasks would compromise the collaboration, the feedback, and the agility of the Scrum Teams.

Merging the two Scrum Teams together is not a viable solution, as this would create a large and unwieldy team. The Scrum Guide states that the optimal size of a Scrum Team is between three and nine members 33. Merging two Scrum Teams together would exceed this limit and create challenges in communication, coordination, and decision-making. Moreover, merging the two teams would not necessarily eliminate the dependencies, as they may still exist within the larger team or with other teams in the Nexus.

Moving away from component teams toward feature teams is a significant change that should be considered carefully. Here are some of the factors that should be taken into account:

Feature teams have less communication overhead than component teams, as they are able to deliver end-to-end customer features without relying on other teams or components 11. This reduces the complexity and the dependencies among the teams, and improves the transparency and the feedback loop. Feature teams also foster more collaboration and cross-functional learning among the team members, as they have to work on different aspects of the product 22.

When making this change, it helps to have support from the organization, as it may require a shift in the culture, the structure, and the processes of the company 33. The organization should provide the necessary resources, training, and coaching to the teams to help them adopt the feature team model. The organization should also align its goals, incentives, and metrics with the feature team approach, and remove any barriers or impediments that may hinder the teams' performance 44.

Productivity may decrease when making this kind of change, as the teams may face some challenges and difficulties in the transition period 55. For example, the teams may have to learn new skills, technologies, or domains that they are not familiar with. The teams may also have to deal with legacy code, technical debt, or integration issues that may slow down their delivery. The teams may also experience some resistance or conflict from the existing component teams or stakeholders. Therefore, the teams should expect some temporary setbacks and losses in productivity, and focus on continuous improvement and adaptation.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

With feature teams, it is not easier to calculate the productivity per team, as productivity is not a simple or straightforward metric to measure in software development [6]. Productivity depends on various factors, such as the quality, the value, the complexity, and the customer satisfaction of the product. Moreover, focusing on the productivity per team may create a competitive or individualistic mindset among the teams, rather than a collaborative or collective one. The teams should focus on delivering the best possible product Increment that meets the Product Goal and the Definition of Done, rather than on maximizing their productivity [7].

You can do Scrum without feature teams, as Scrum does not prescribe any specific team structure or organization [8]. Scrum only requires that the Scrum Team is cross-functional, self-organizing, and accountable for delivering a potentially releasable product Increment every Sprint [9]. However, feature teams are generally more aligned with the Scrum values and principles, as they enable the teams to deliver customer-centric features faster and more frequently, and to respond to changes more effectively [10]. Therefore, feature teams are recommended, but not mandatory, for Scrum.

The best way for multiple Scrum Teams to deliver a valuable and useful Increment in a Sprint is to complete work that integrates with all of the other work from other Scrum Teams on the initiative. This means that the Scrum Teams collaborate and coordinate their work to produce a single Integrated Increment that meets the Definition of Done and the Product Goal. The Integrated Increment is the combined work of all the Scrum Teams that is potentially releasable and provides value to the customers and stakeholders 11.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

Each Scrum Team delivering done Increments of its own area of responsibility and integrating them into a whole product during stabilization prior to release is not a good idea, as it violates the Scrum principles and values. The Scrum Guide states that the Scrum Team delivers a product Increment that is usable and valuable at the end of every Sprint, not at the end of the release 22. Delaying the integration until the stabilization phase would compromise the transparency, the feedback, and the adaptability of the Scrum Teams.

Each Scrum Team providing a unique done Increment that includes the team's added functionality is not a good idea, as it does not ensure that the product Increment is integrated and consistent across the initiative. The Scrum Guide states that the product Increment is the sum of all the Product Backlog items completed during a Sprint and all previous Sprints 22. If each Scrum Team provides a unique Increment, they may not be aligned with the Product Goal and the Definition of Done, and they may create conflicts or dependencies with other Scrum Teams.

Functionality not integrated with the work of other Scrum Teams being delivered as unintegrated Increments to demonstrate the value created by the Scrum Teams unable to completely integrate their Increments is not a good idea, as it does not ensure that the product Increment is done and valuable. The Scrum Guide states that the product Increment must be usable and meet the Definition of Done 22. If some functionality is not integrated with the work of other Scrum Teams, it may not be usable or valuable to the customers and stakeholders, and it may introduce technical debt or quality issues.

A Nexus Integration Team is not accountable for ensuring that an Integrated Increment is produced at least once a Sprint. The Nexus Integration Team is a specialized Scrum Team that provides services and guidance to the Scrum Teams in the Nexus to ensure that the Integrated Increment is produced every Sprint 11. However, the Nexus Integration Team is not accountable for the integration of the work of the individual Scrum Teams, as this is the responsibility of the Scrum Teams themselves 22. The Nexus Integration Team helps the Scrum Teams to coordinate, coach, and supervise the application of Nexus and the operation of Scrum, but it does not take over their work or accountability 33. Therefore, the statement is false.

Self-managing Scrum Teams are teams that internally decide who does what, when, and how, rather than being directed by others outside the team 11. Self-managing Scrum Teams have the following benefits:

Increased self-accountability: Self-managing Scrum Teams are accountable for delivering a potentially releasable product Increment every Sprint that meets the Definition of Done and the Product Goal 22. They are also accountable for following the Scrum values and principles, and for inspecting and adapting their work and process 33. By being accountable for their own decisions and actions, self-managing Scrum Teams are more responsible, transparent, and quality-oriented.

Increased creativity: Self-managing Scrum Teams have the autonomy and the empowerment to choose how best to accomplish their work, rather than being constrained by predefined methods or instructions 44. They also have the opportunity to experiment, learn, and innovate, as they are encouraged to try new ideas and approaches to solve complex problems [5]. By having the freedom and the support to be creative, self-managing Scrum Teams are more productive, adaptive, and valuable.

Increased commitment: Self-managing Scrum Teams have the ownership and the involvement in their work, as they are part of the planning, execution, and review of the product development [6]. They also have the trust and the collaboration among the team members, as they share a common goal and vision, and respect each other's skills and abilities [7]. By having the sense of belonging and the teamwork, self-managing Scrum Teams are more motivated, engaged, and satisfied.