Scrum Process

Correct Answer: The story is moved back to the product backlog for reconsideration in a future sprint.

The feature or user story that didn’t meet the acceptance criteria should be moved back to the product backlog for reconsideration in a future sprint. This follows Scrum methodology where each sprint delivers a potential shippable increment. Quality over quantity is stressed. Sending the story back to the backlog ensures it gets the attention required to meet the acceptance criteria. For why the rest are incorrect: - Pushing back and making the product owner accept the feature is not a good practice. The product owner represents the customer or stakeholder who ultimately defines the value of the work. If a feature does not meet their acceptance criteria, it doesn't deliver value. - Asking the development team to work extra hours to fix the feature instantly is also incorrect. Working extended hours can not only lead to burnout but also is against Scrum's sustainable pace principle. - Canceling the current sprint and starting a new one focusing on this feature is not the right approach either as it goes against Scrum's value of commitment. Sprints are time-boxed and the commitment is made for the duration of the sprint. Also, not all work in the sprint is related to the particular feature that was rejected.

Correct Answer: Discuss with the team about the importance of delivering business value and place this task in the backlog if time permits in future sprints.

It's crucial for a Scrum Master to remind the team of the business value and the objectives, which each sprint should bring. The first answer hits that key point as discussing with the team about the business importance teaches them to prioritize necessary over interesting. Putting the interesting task in the backlog for future consideration is an apt way of handling without entirely dismissing it or compromising on the current sprint's business value. The second answer incorrectly lets the task into the sprint just based on the product owner's approval, which missing the key focus on delivering business value. The third answer rejects the task outright without consideration for future or team morale, which isn't the correct approach. The fourth answer, although considers team morale, fails to keep business value central to decision making.

Correct Answer: Facilitate a discussion with the team to modify the sprint backlog accordingly or roll over the work to the next sprint.

The role of the Scrum Master in this scenario is to facilitate a resolution that respects the principles of Agile development. In the event that the development team cannot complete the work within the time-boxed sprint, the best option is to help the team reassess and modify the sprint backlog as required, or carry the unfinished work over to the next sprint, thereby adhering to the concept of 'time-boxing' in Scrum framework which sets a fixed limit on the time allowed for a sprint or any other activity. Asking the team to work extra hours fundamentally violates Agile principles, which advocate for maintaining a sustainable pace of work. Blaming the team for poor time management isn't constructive and it's not a solution to the problem. Extending the length of the sprint disrupts the rhythm of work and planning, and also violates the principle of time-boxed sprints--which should be consistent in length.