Re: PO at retro

Hi All,


This comes up quite a lot. I'm glad that the Scrum Guide explicitly states
the entire teams presence is required - no hiding behind the rulebook that
way. The result can be decreased safety to speak your mind but the cause is
not the PO's presence but some underlying factor that causes that

discomfort. More-, not less transparency is more likely to present
solutions in my experience.


I have tried POless retrospectives but that has always kept in place or
increased the business-developer divide. Have any of you had good outcomes
from choosing privacy over transparency?


Dennis




On 24 Feb 2017 1:00 am, "Silvana Wasitova [email protected]
[SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]" <[email protected]> wrote:




[Attachment(s) <#m_1630651026666345835_TopText> from Silvana Wasitova
included below]


Hi Jean,


re. Scrum Guide: the term "Scrum Team" is inclusive of PO, so the Scrum
Guide is quite explicit about this. In fact, some improvements may need to
be owned & done by the PO, so best to have that conversation with the
relevant persons, e.g. re-define DoD, or clarify acceptance criteria.


Highly performant teams I worked with have a smooth and trusting
relationship with the PO, and include the PO in the Retro. The only times
I've seen PO be explicitly excluded is when the PO-Dev Team relationship is
strained; even then the aim is to look for ways to improve their
relationship over time, and be inclusive in the (near?) future.


Silvana Wasitova




------------------------------
*From:* "'Jean Richardson' [email protected] [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT]" <
[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 12:13 AM
*Subject:* [SCRUMDEVELOPMENT] PO at retro





I’m having the “should the Product Owner be at the retrospective”
conversation again.  While, years ago, the Product Owner was optional in
this meeting, a fair amount of learning has happened since then and a range
of resources has come out advocating that the PO be present—not optional.
The current edition of the Scrum Guide doesn’t help much here by referring
only to the “Scrum Team” in the section on the retro, but, then again,
maybe that’s intentional, and the Ken and Jeff now believe, based on
feedback and experiments, that the PO should be present at the retro as a
matter of course.


In a situation where the relationship is not good between the PO and the
Development Team of the PO and the SM, I’m wondering about the quality of a
retro where the PO is not optional, but a required attendee.  The guidance
I typically give is that the purpose of the review is to inspect the
increment and the purpose of the retro is for the team to inspect their
work processes.  The most intimates changes are often within the team, and
those conversations require privacy and confidentiality to those present
unless those present determine otherwise.  Therefore, I still am reasoning
that the PO is optional and included with the agreement of the Development
Team.


Thoughts?  References?


--- Jean




*[image: gate.site.jpg]*


*Jean Richardson*
Azure Gate Consulting
*~ **Repatterning the Human Experience of Work*


*AzureGate.net*
(503) 788-8998
[email protected]