I’m not sure that I will do this (since it costs 500$) but I’m gathering resources in case I do.
One of the Scrum events is the Sprint Review. How does the Sprint Review enable empiricism? What would the impact be if some members of the development team were not present?
The Sprint Review enables empiricism, because people talk about what was done during the Sprint.
Why this is a bad answer:
It does not address the second part of the question, and does not explain how the Sprint Review enables empiricism. It only vaguely describes what is done during the Sprint Review, which should be considered common knowledge for this higher level assessment.
The Sprint Review enables empiricism by providing an opportunity for the Scrum Team and the interested stakeholders to inspect the increment and adapt the backlog. The Sprint Review supports transparency, because everyone can see what has been produced.
If only part of development team was present, there would be less transparency. The development team members who were not present lose the opportunity to directly hear the feedback provided during the review. Directly hearing from stakeholders increases their understanding of what the stakeholders want.
Why this is a good answer:
It answers both of the points being raised in the question. It doesn’t include a lot of unnecessary supporting information like describing what a Sprint Review is.
Based on the “good answer” they probably want your answer to relate back to Scrum Values.
Q) What can/must the Scrum Master do, when the Product Owner is not collaborative? e.g. the PO is always busy and has no time to adjust or review the Product Backlog. Teaching him of Scrum rules has no result. Is it possible that the development team members elect a new/another PO? May a development team member be elected as a new PO?
A) The Product Owner determines product value and is responsible for return on investment. The PO may genuinely own the product in some cases, and without a co-operative PO it can be argued that there is no product at all. Unfortunately, a team is no more able to elect a new PO than it can elect a new product.
<…> it falls to the Scrum Master to deal with the impediment presented by an uncooperative Product Owner. The Scrum Master has a wider duty to organisational stakeholders. As such, the Scrum Master should inform those stakeholders of the concerns, and of the risks presented by inadequate product ownership. The focus should be on the problems caused to date and which are likely to result in the future…not on the failings of the PO as a person. It should then be left to those stakeholders to make the decision whether or not to replace the PO. The Scrum Master would be wise to keep communication channels to the stakeholders open regardless of the outcome.
You are a Scrum Master working with a Scrum Team. The Development Team constantly complain that requirements are not clear enough. The Product Owner claims she is too busy to provide extra clarity. What should you do?
[no answer given]