Inviting stakeholders to the review: Scrum Master or Product Owner?

Since both the PO and the SM have some kind of relationship to the stakeholders, who should be in first line here?

There is no line at all. Instead there ought to be teamwork: the PO represents the stakeholder relationship, the Scrum Master facilitates it.

Yes, sure, sorry for the bad wording here...

But in this (maybe very trivial) situation, do you see a good reason to say "in any case the SM is the one who must invite the stakeholders to the review and ensure that they are present and understand the sense of this event" vs. "in any case the PO is the one who etc."?

Or is it something that will depend on the situation and that shouldn't be prescribed? I understand that the Scrum Guide doesn't say anything about it but maybe there are recommendations or good practices around

I am currently going through the PSPO learning path, so hopefully my understanding is correct: 

The PO is the one who identifies the stakeholders, and is also the one who invites key stakeholders to the sprint review.  The SM can also invite if the PO has asked them to facilitate. 

Yes, the PO identifies the key stakeholders and perhaps even gives them a heads up about why they’ve been identified. Then the SM sets up the Sprint Review and invites all stakeholders and facilitates the meeting. The SM doesn’t typically have those key relationships with the stakeholders. That’s the PO’s role.

I agree to Gia Madson point. But in some projects/organizations SM also knows key stakeholders but SM needs to discuss or get concurrence from PO. But ultimately the PO is the one deciding the key stakeholders for the sprint review. 

There is no such thing as "in any case...". Business stakeholder management is mostly PO job in regards of the product, so it is in POs best interest to be the one managing these stakeholder interactions. But in many cases SM has a job in coaching the PO and/or stakeholders to understand the feedback-based aspect of development, and "getting people together" can fall into a SMs hand.

If you need to formalize who will do the actual work of getting people to attend, there are probably greater problems than facilitating the Sprint Review.

A good Scrum Master will do their best to ensure there's sufficient transparency, and inspection and adaptation taking place with the right people.

A good Product Owner will strive to ensure that their stakeholders are inspecting the product, and providing valuable feedback, in order to maximize the value delivered.

These are not in conflict, and so I would expect collaboration.

Scrum teams are "self-managing, meaning they internally decide who does what, when, and how."

Hi,

         I have started preparing for PSM1 exam. Most of the people suggested to read scrum guide, take open assessment many times, mock tests in mikhali lapshin and udemy course by Valentin. Looks like Mikhali Lapshin questions are still from old scrum guide version. Is it enough preparation to get 100% continuously in the open assessment? I am just concerned to take other mocks tests from previous scrum guide version from different sources as answers might be different in the latest version. Please share your thoughts on this.

Thank you!

I second @imon Mayer's statements.  When I read the following I cringed.

Yes, the PO identifies the key stakeholders and perhaps even gives them a heads up about why they’ve been identified. Then the SM sets up the Sprint Review and invites all stakeholders and facilitates the meeting.

As a Scrum Master I have never scheduled any of the Scrum events and I have never ensured that anyone attended.  I do ensure that the Scrum Team and the extended organization understand the benefits and reasons of the events.  I also help facilitate that the events stay focused on the intended purpose. But I never lead an event. I attend. I help to point out if the discussions are straying away from the intended purpose. I help people from going down the proverbial "rabbit hole".  But I am a passive attendee whose sole purpose is to help the attendees realize the full potential of the time that they are spending together. 

There is very little that a Scrum Master does by themselves.  We spend our time interacting with others in ways that help them fully understand and appreciate what the Scrum framework can provide.  As a Scrum Master I have never told anyone how to do something.  I have helped a lot of people understand how what they were doing was either harmful or beneficial to the organization's ability to continuously deliver value. 

As usual, lots of very interesting food for thought, thanks all!

@Simon Mayer :

If you need to formalize who will do the actual work of getting people to attend, there are probably greater problems than facilitating the Sprint Review.

My question was only loosely related to a real situation. Rather than wanting to formalize who will do the work, I only wanted to read opinions on whether or not there is a crystal clear answer to the question "who should do it?", just like there is a crystal clear answer to the question "Who is in charge of establishing the Sprint backlog?"

@Daniel Wilhite :

But I never lead an event

Very clear that the Scrum Master is not here to lead anything (at least not in a traditional sense). But would you also say that you have (as a Scrum Master) never organized / facilitated a Scrum event? Typically with a team that is fully new to Scrum and is not fully proficient with all the events and rules, would you not organize and facilitate at least the first sprint plannings, reviews and retrospectives? Would you here also "only" coach the Product Owner to do so him/herself, even if the PO is fully new to the position?

I only wanted to read opinions on whether or not there is a crystal clear answer to the question "who should do it?"

No, the short answer is "it depends".

I would normally find it most effective if the Product Owner were to invite the relevant stakeholders, and to explain to them why their attendance is important; but a self-managing Scrum Team might find a way that works better in their context.

As a Scrum Master, if I see an opportunity for the Sprint Review to provide more transparency or better inspection & adaptation, I am likely to act in some way. This may take the form of helping the Scrum Team see the opportunity / impediment, advising or coaching the Product Owner, directly approaching stakeholders to help them understand the purpose of the Sprint Review and how to participate effectively, or challenging the situation when conversations take place without the right people present.

For example, today, I reminded my colleagues of the time (a few months back) that the PO invited a customer to our Sprint Review (normally we only invite internal stakeholders). I posed a question about whether we should strive to do this more often. I'm not trying to select stakeholders, but I am reminding colleagues (and particularly the PO) of the result of the previous time we invited a customer, so that a decision may be made about whether to do it more frequently.

I have never lead an event.  I stand by that statement.  Have I helped new teams with their first events?  Sure as a passive participant for the actual event but I would always ask for a short period of time at the beginning of the events to explain the purpose of the event to everyone participating. I even do that for some well established teams because everyone can benefit from a refresher from time to time.  Then I would leave it up to the team to run/manage the event.  I would let them experiment with how they felt the event would be the most benefit for them.  The only event that I actively participate in is the Sprint Retrospective.  Because for that event, I am an equal participant as its purpose is to improve the way the team works together. But I never lead the event.  I might mention in that meeting something I noticed in the Daily Scrums but it is mentioned as a "do any of you see this is a problem" and not "you are doing this wrong so do it like this instead".  

If I am working with a team that is newly formed, my preference is to take a short period before the first Sprint to get "situated".  Have them meet together to get to know each other, set some basic rules of engagement/team agreements, start to work on populating the Product Backlog.  We will even do some refinement sessions in order to get items in the Product Backlog ready to pull into a Sprint.  That is the time where I am most active as it is time for me, as a Scrum Master, to impart knowledge on Scrum and help them to understand the benefits.  I do this with a team that is brand new to Scrum or a team of seasoned Scrum participants that are coming together for the first time as a team.  But when the team agrees that it is time for the first Sprint I actively back away from them and encourage them to self-organize and self-manage. I will go as far as to refuse to schedule anything for them.  I will also "unfortunately have to miss" some of the early events so that they will not depend on me being there to guide them.  On more than one team I have missed all of the events for the first Sprint if I felt that they had a grasp of the concepts.  There is nothing that states the Scrum Master has to attend all events much less participate in all of them.  Sometimes the best way for people to truly grasp the concept of agile is to fail or experience problems.  I would never let a team fail in such a way that would cause irrevocable harm but I am not afraid to let them suffer from their own decisions. 

My short answer is "it depends".

It depends on the maturity of the Scrum Team. If it is a 'young' team with minimal experience in Scrum, I'd suggest (if we really have to) for the Scrum Master to handle the Scrum ceremonies and the Product Owner to handle any other meetings required.

Once the Scrum Team gets the hang of it, I'd let go for them to lead the meetings/reviews and be a passive participant.