Back to Professional Scrum Product Owner I (PSPO I)

Developing People and Teams

Understanding self-managing teams and how to support team development within Scrum.

Focuses on self-managing teams and the Product Owner's role in supporting team development. Covers how Scrum Teams organize their work, make decisions autonomously, and continuously improve through collaboration and shared accountability.
5 minutes 5 Questions

Developing People and Teams is a crucial competency area for Product Owners within the Scrum framework. It focuses on building high-performing teams and fostering individual growth to maximize product value delivery. As a Product Owner, you must understand that successful product development depen…

Concepts covered: Decision making in self-managing teams, Self-managing teams characteristics, Team autonomy in Scrum, Team accountability and ownership, Supporting team development, Collaboration within the Scrum Team, Removing impediments, Continuous improvement mindset

Test mode:
Start practice test
PSPO I - Developing People and Teams Example Questions

Test your knowledge of Developing People and Teams

Question 1

You are the Product Owner for a fleet management system tracking 5,000 delivery vehicles across North America. Your Scrum Team has been delivering valuable increments every two-week Sprint for the past eight months using their established engineering practices. During the current Sprint, the Developers selected work that includes implementing route optimization improvements and enhancing the driver communication interface. On day 3 of the 10-day Sprint, during their technical collaboration session, the Developers discover that their planned approach to route optimization using a specific algorithm isn't performing well with the real-world traffic data patterns they're testing against. They hold a discussion among themselves and decide to switch from a greedy algorithm approach to a dynamic programming solution, which they believe will produce better route recommendations for drivers. This technical pivot requires restructuring their implementation work from the past two days, but they remain confident about achieving the Sprint Goal. They update their Sprint Backlog to reflect this algorithmic change and continue their development work. That same afternoon, your company's Director of Logistics Technology, who oversees operational technology standards across the organization and reports to the COO, sends you a message. He explains that he heard through engineering channels that your team is evaluating route optimization algorithms, and he has concerns about consistency across logistics systems. He requests a meeting tomorrow morning where he wants to present the algorithm evaluation framework his department created, review the team's technical decision in detail, and provide specific guidance on which algorithmic approaches align with the company's logistics optimization strategy that should be adopted for all routing features. He mentions his team has already conducted extensive analysis on various algorithms and has prepared recommendations based on their research. Your Developers include two members with computer science backgrounds who have successfully delivered multiple optimization features for the fleet management system. What should you do as Product Owner in this situation?

Correct Answer: Acknowledge the Director's expertise and offer to have him present his research to the team during backlog refinement for future work, while explaining that the Developers have the authority to determine implementation approaches during the Sprint and have made a technical decision they believe best serves the product.

As a Product Owner in Scrum, you must protect the Developers' authority to make technical decisions during Sprint execution while also maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders.

The correct approach is to acknowledge the Director's expertise and offer to have him present his research to the team during backlog refinement for future work, while explaining that the Developers have the authority to determine implementation approaches during the Sprint and have made a technical decision they believe best serves the product.

Here's why this is the best answer:

  1. Respects Developer Self-Management: The Scrum framework explicitly grants Developers the authority to determine how they will accomplish their work during the Sprint. They have already made a technical decision based on their testing with real-world data.

  2. Protects Sprint Execution: The Sprint is already underway (day 3 of 10), and the Developers remain confident about achieving the Sprint Goal despite their technical pivot. Introducing external review and approval processes mid-Sprint interferes with their self-management and Sprint progress.

  3. Maintains Stakeholder Relationships: By acknowledging the Director's expertise and offering a constructive path forward (presenting to the team for future work), you demonstrate respect for his position and organizational knowledge without undermining the Scrum Team's authority.

  4. Provides Appropriate Timing: Backlog refinement is the appropriate forum for stakeholders to influence future work direction, not mid-Sprint technical implementation decisions.

Why the other approaches are less effective:

Scheduling a meeting as requested for the Director to review and provide guidance on the current Sprint work undermines the Developers' authority to make technical decisions during Sprint execution. This creates a precedent where external stakeholders can interrupt and override technical decisions mid-Sprint.

Suggesting a knowledge-sharing session after the Sprint is better than mid-Sprint intervention, but it still implies the Director's validation is needed for decisions the Developers are empowered to make. This approach doesn't clearly establish boundaries about decision-making authority during Sprint execution.

Arranging a meeting where Developers present their approach for the Director's feedback and validation treats the Director as having approval authority over the team's technical decisions. This fundamentally contradicts the principle of Developer self-management and creates dependency on external validation for implementation choices the team is qualified and authorized to make.

Question 2

You are the Product Owner for a subscription-based meal planning application serving 75,000 users across North America. Your Scrum Team has been delivering valuable increments every two-week Sprint for the past nine months using their established practices. During the current Sprint, the Developers selected work that includes implementing personalized recipe recommendations and enhancing the grocery list integration feature. On day 5 of the 10-day Sprint, during their collaborative refinement session, the Developers realize they need to make a significant technical decision about data storage for user preferences. They discuss two approaches: storing preference data in the existing relational database with additional tables, or implementing a document-based storage solution that would provide more flexibility for future personalization features. After evaluating query patterns, scalability considerations, and maintenance implications, the Developers reach consensus among themselves to adopt the document-based approach, believing it better serves the product's evolution. They update their Sprint Backlog to reflect the revised implementation tasks and continue their work. That evening, your company's VP of Platform Engineering, who oversees technical infrastructure standards across all product lines and reports to the CTO, sends you a message. She mentions she learned through engineering channels that your team is evaluating database solutions for user data. She states that data architecture decisions carry significant implications for system performance, security, and operational costs across the organization. She requests a meeting tomorrow morning where she intends to present the enterprise data architecture framework her department has developed, review the specific database technologies that have been approved for production use, examine your team's technical decision in detail, and provide definitive guidance on which data storage approach aligns with the company's platform strategy that should be adopted. She notes that her infrastructure team has already conducted extensive vendor evaluations and capacity planning that should inform these choices. Your Developers include members with strong database design experience who have successfully delivered multiple data-intensive features for the meal planning platform. How should you handle this situation as Product Owner?

Correct Answer: Acknowledge the VP's expertise and organizational perspective, then explain that the Developers hold the authority to determine technical implementation approaches during the Sprint. Offer to facilitate a conversation where the VP can share the enterprise architecture framework as context for future Product Backlog refinement, while clarifying that the current Sprint's technical decisions remain with the Developers. Focus on understanding if there are genuine organizational constraints that should become transparent impediments for the Scrum Master to address.

The correct approach acknowledges the VP's expertise and organizational perspective while upholding the fundamental Scrum principle that Developers have the authority to determine how they do their work, including technical implementation decisions.

In Scrum, the Developers are self-managing professionals who decide how to turn Product Backlog items into Increments of value. This includes all technical decisions about implementation approaches, architecture, and tooling. The Product Owner focuses on what needs to be built and why (product value and ordering), not how it should be built.

However, this doesn't mean the VP's concerns should be dismissed. There may be legitimate organizational constraints (security policies, compliance requirements, operational standards) that represent genuine impediments. The appropriate response is to:

  1. Protect the Developers' authority over technical decisions during the Sprint
  2. Acknowledge that enterprise architecture frameworks can provide valuable context for future refinement
  3. Determine if there are actual organizational constraints that need transparency
  4. Position the Scrum Master to address any genuine impediments that emerge

The other approaches have significant problems:

Positioning the meeting as a collaborative learning opportunity where Developers should consider incorporating the VP's recommendations undermines Developer self-management. While learning is valuable, framing it as the Developers needing to "carefully consider" adjusting their decision based on the VP's input suggests the VP has authority over technical choices, which contradicts Scrum's principles about who decides how work is done.

Asking Developers to prepare detailed technical presentations to demonstrate their thinking to leadership misunderstands the accountability structure. Developers don't need to justify their technical decisions to executives or gain organizational visibility through technical explanations. This creates an inappropriate approval dynamic and wastes valuable Sprint time on justification rather than delivery.

Proposing to add an item to the Product Backlog to evaluate the framework in the next Sprint might seem diplomatic, but it still suggests that the current Sprint's technical decision might be wrong and needs reconsideration. It also inappropriately uses the Product Backlog (which is for product features and improvements) for what is essentially a technical implementation consideration that belongs in the Developers' domain.

Question 3

Who is accountable for maximizing the value of the product resulting from the work of the Scrum Team?

Correct Answer: The Product Owner

The Product Owner is accountable for maximizing the value of the product resulting from the work of the Scrum Team.

This is a fundamental principle clearly stated in the Scrum Guide. The Product Owner is the single person responsible for maximizing the value of the product and the work of the Scrum Team. This accountability includes managing the Product Backlog, ensuring transparency of the backlog items, ordering items to best achieve goals and missions, and ensuring the Product Backlog is understood by the Scrum Team.

Why the other answers are incorrect:

While the Scrum Master helps the Product Owner and facilitates Scrum events, the Scrum Master is not accountable for product value maximization. The Scrum Master is accountable for establishing Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide and for the Scrum Team's effectiveness.

Although the entire Scrum Team works together and is collectively responsible for creating a valuable Increment each Sprint, the specific accountability for maximizing product value rests with the Product Owner. The team is collectively accountable for creating a valuable, useful Increment, but the Product Owner holds the unique accountability for value maximization through product decisions and backlog management.

The Developers are accountable for creating a plan for the Sprint (Sprint Backlog), instilling quality, and adapting their plan each day toward the Sprint Goal. While they create the Increment, they are not accountable for maximizing the overall product value - that strategic accountability belongs to the Product Owner.

More Developing People and Teams questions
367 questions (total)
Start 100 question test