Planning Poker

Correct Answer: Introduce a calibration session to discuss past estimations and adjust future estimations accordingly.

The correct answer emphasizes the importance of using a calibration session to revisit and reflect on past estimation activities and improve the accuracy of future estimations together as a team. This approach fosters team collaboration and continuous improvement without singling out any team member. The incorrect answers, while related to Agile and Scrum methodologies, do not directly address the issue of a team member's consistent overestimation in a collaborative or constructive manner. Utilizing a weighted shortest job first technique changes prioritization methods rather than addressing estimation accuracy. A no-estimation policy avoids dealing with estimations entirely, which is not beneficial for understanding or improving estimation practices. Lastly, performing a detailed analysis of each task to understand overestimations focuses too much on what has already happened instead of proactively improving future estimation practices.

Correct Answer: Have a further discussion to understand each team member's perspective and then re-estimate

The ScrumMaster's primary role is to facilitate discussions and ensure everyone's perspectives are heard and understood. When disagreements about estimates occur, the ScrumMaster should facilitate further discussion to understand each team member's viewpoint, and then call for a re-estimate. This ensures the consideration of each team member's perspective in the decision-making process and nurtures the team's ability to come to an agreement as a group. Meanwhile, the other options inherently devalue the importance of achieving team consensus. Choosing the highest or lowest estimate provided by the team, or take an average of all the estimates provided so far overvalues one team member's judgment and undervalues others'. It can lead to sub-optimal estimates and undermine the principle of collective ownership.

Correct Answer: A wide spread in story points

In Planning Poker, a wide spread in story points typically signifies that there is a significant difference in understanding or perspective on the user story among team members. This variance indicates the need for further discussion to clarify any ambiguities or uncertainties regarding the scope, complexity, or effort required for the user story, allowing team members to align their understanding and reach a more accurate estimate. A quick consensus on story points indicates that team members are on the same page, so it doesn't necessarily point to the need for further discussion. Identical estimates from all team members would imply perfect agreement, which similarly suggests that no further discussion is needed. Minor disagreements on story point values might highlight some differing opinions but not to the extent that a wide spread does. The wide spread is a clear indicator of a deeper need for discussion to ensure a common understanding and agreement on the effort required for the user story.