Managing the Product Backlog

The Product Backlog can be ordered in any manner the Product Owner sees fit. Since the PO has apparently decided on a policy of ordering items by value, the item you refer to would indeed remain at the top.

Does the PO consider this policy of backlog ordering to be unsatisfactory?

Does the PO consider this policy of backlog ordering to be unsatisfactory?

@Ian, The PO is neutral. As a matter of fact, the discussion between us and the team was, if the item is now undone (because it has a dependency), then should we re-order the backlog as per what the Scrum guide says or should we leave it at the top because it is the highest value item. So, we had divided opinions where some said, it should stay on the top because it is the most valuable item but we need to keep in mind that its delivery would be delayed, and some said we should re-order the backlog and consider this item perhaps in the next sprint.

I see what you're saying, but is there a right answer amongst these two opinions? If yes, why? If no, why?

This is the reason why the Scrum Guide states that "The Product Backlog is an ordered list", and not trivially "a prioritized list".

https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#artifacts-productbacklog

Because of many criteria, some "not-so-high value items" can be ordered before some "high value item".

This is the reason why the Scrum Guide states that "The Product Backlog is an ordered list", and not trivially "a prioritized list".

https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html#artifacts-productbacklog

Because of many criteria, some "not-so-high value items" can be ordered before some "high value item".

@Olivier, the Scrum guide only says that backlog is an ordered list, but it also says there are higher ordered items and lower ordered items. What determines the which item should be higher ordered? In my opinion that is value delivered or what the stakeholders or customers want the most and perceive as high value. Hence my understanding is high order = high value. Also, what guides to the term "value" is the fact that the role of the PO is to maximize the value of the product

Now, in my situation above, our PBI is ranked/ordered # 1 but is blocked by a depedency. Therefore, should we re-order this backlog and move our PBI to rank/order # 10 to be considered for another sprint or until the dependency is removed for example, or should we just leave it at rank # 1? I feel it should remain where it is as the unnecessary movement/arrangement is a form of waste as per Lean practices. Also, if it is a higher ordered item, does it still need to be re-ordered?

That is the clarity I am unable to achieve and the help I am seeking.

Now, in my situation above, our PBI is ranked/ordered # 1 but is blocked by a depedency. Therefore, should we re-order this backlog and move our PBI to rank/order # 10 to be considered for another sprint or until the dependency is removed for example, or should we just leave it at rank # 1?

Would re-ordering help the flow of value to be improved?

Would re-ordering help the flow of value to be improved?

@Ian, Let me attempt answering, though this was what I wasn't sure about. If I am wrong, please correct me.

Let's say we don't re-order the backlog, then the Development team will focus on the next set of high ordered items that help the flow of value (we are assuming in this case that our item on hold is still static at the top). If we re-order, the backlog, then the also the DT is going to pick the items that deliver value as per the PO.

Therefore, in my opinion, and understanding, how the well defined higher order items are particularly arranged don't matter. What matters is, when the value of the item changes, their position in the backlog is changed.

That brings me to ask, where do we define what a high order item is? What is the number where it stops being a higher order item and progressses to a lower order item?

Though, still doubtful, when I reflect over some of the above thoughts, I think re-ordering will help the flow of value.

when I reflect over some of the above thoughts, I think re-ordering will help the flow of value.

Re-ordering (to accommodate dependencies for example) can therefore help the PO to maximize product value, which is key to the role. Hence the PO can order the Product Backlog in any way he or she sees fit. Maximizing product value does not necessarily mean ordering a backlog by each item’s value.

Maximizing product value does not necessarily mean ordering a backlog by each item’s value.

Does that mean that there could be instances where the highest ordered item may not be the most valuable? For ex:

Rank/Order = 1, Value = 5

Rank/Order = 2, Value = 10

What does maximize Product value mean, if additions to it don't add value? Is it perhaps the paying off of technical debt, better non-functionals being incorporated, bug fixes/enhancements?

The Product Backlog is often ordered by value, risk, priority, and necessity. Top-ordered Product Backlog items drive immediate development activities. The higher the order, the more a Product Backlog item has been considered, and the more consensus exists regarding it and its value.

As I was reading more, I came upon this excerpt from the 2011 version of the Scrum Guide. Why did this passage change or get removed? This makes more sense actually.

Hi Steve.

Scrum says >> "The Product Owner is responsible for maximizing the value of the product resulting from work of the Development Team"

This is done by a) ordering the Product Backlog and b) managing dependencies. If your highest value item is not ready for sprint planning then you need to facilitate for the team the next highest value items that are deemed ready. If you keep it on top of the backlog or not is not that important.

Hope this helps. Success.

There are a lot of good rationales above. And yet, there's no mention of transparency. Transparency to the team, transparency to the stakeholders, transparency to the business.

If you were to keep the highest value item at the top of the list, would you say there is enough transparency for everyone (including the team)? How trustworthy/reliable would they consider to be future statuses of the backlog once they notice there's reduced transparency?

In my view, the dependency is actually more important that the relative most valued functionality, and hence would need to be ordered above it. Without addressing the dependency, the most valuable functionality can't be started. Not to mentione that, by addressing the dependency, you could uncover things that would delay or even prevent the functionality being developed. Ie

• Delay - addressing the dependency highlights another dependency, or the need to get additional hardware, or 
• Prevent - addressing the dependency makes it clear it is impossible to develop the functionality due to a native conflict

So transparency > inspection > adaptation. This cycle has "been there" for thousands of years, it's not something Agile or Scrum brought to the table.

I'd argue the dependency should be ordered above the functionality

I love this discussion.  Thanks for asking @Steve.  Now for my opinion.

An "ordered" backlog can be done in any manner as long as it is transparent and understood.  To address the transparency, the PO should be forthcoming in explaining how they arrived at the order.  Does it always have to be same way for the life of the PB? Not at all as long as there is some reasoning behind it and can be explained.  Is the first item a higher priority? Should the item that fixes a bug that affects 1000 users and provides a lot of good will rank higher than the new feature that is forecast to drive $1,000,000 in new revenue? Honestly, that all depends on the company and the situation.  The PO should be respected by the entire organization to make the right decision. 

I do coach that items at the top of the PB should be better understood than the items lower down.  New ideas, possible ideas that need a little more research have a place in the PB. Near the bottom or close to the middle.  Anything above the "middle" should have understanding by the entire Scrum team and that understanding increases the closer you get to the top of the PB. 

My POs are encouraged to use empiricism in making the decision on ordering.  Based on the information you have available to you at the time you are making the decision, what do you think is the right answer? Do you have new information and does it influence the decision you made earlier? Adapt based on the new information.  Management of the PBIs should not be subject to any special rules/treatment than everything else you do in Scrum or Agile.

Late to this discussion, but one section in an earlier post just sticks out for me:

"the discussion between us and the team was, if the item is now undone (because it has a dependency), then should we re-order the backlog as per what the Scrum guide says or should we leave it at the top because it is the highest value item."

Who is "we"?   Who is "us"?   Is there an understanding within everyone on the Scrum Team that the PO has sole responsibility for managing the Product Backlog?   

Does everyone involved understand that the PO may order the items in the backlog in any way they see fit, as long as their reasoning is clearly communicated and understood?