Should Scope Re-negotiation should always result in scope being descoped?

What is your exact concern or question, Pankaj?

My question/concern is coming out from the following questions

While going through the sprint, additional tasks/work gets identified which needs discussion with PO for potential re-negotiation of Sprint Backlog scope. However, PO is not fully convinced with the recommendation to have scope reduced? As a scrum master what are the possible approaches to handle such a situation?

Posted By Pankaj Ahuja on 29 Jun 2016 01:51 PM
> While going through the sprint, additional tasks/work gets identified which needs discussion with PO for potential re-negotiation of Sprint Backlog scope. However, PO is not fully convinced with the recommendation to have scope reduced? As a scrum master what are the possible approaches to handle such a situation?

I am making the following assumptions based on the example you outlined.

- The Development Team forecasted work in their sprint backlog based on the offer from the PO, and agreed to a sprint goal with their PO.

- The items in the Development Team's sprint backlog were groomed with the PO, and there is a shared understanding within the Scrum Team on all of the items offered and accepted.

- During the sprint, the team identified additional work needed to meet the Sprint Goal, and the forecasted work now exceeds the Development Team's comfort level (capacity).

If the above is accurate, then my response is as follows:

The Development Team has responsibility and authority for "how" the Sprint Goal is achieved (the solution).

If the scope of the solution has changed, then a discussion with the PO about the remaining Sprint Backlog items should take place.

However, is the "additional" scope so significant that it requires a re-evaluation of the Sprint Backlog? Perhaps it is a larger solution than originally considered, but where is the team in the current sprint? I would assume that it is early in the sprint, so one question is whether it is worth the "hit" to the current sprint to have the team meet separately with the PO to discuss what the team "might" be able to finish?

Perhaps transparency and awareness should be the initial approach? Ensure everyone is aware of the solution changes and the potential impact to the remaining Sprint Backlog. It is important that the team work on Sprint Backlog items in priority order, so that if the PO is unwilling to renegotiate scope, any potential "carryover" of items will be the lowest-priority ones.

As the sprint progresses, either the Development Team will exceed their expectations and remain on track for finishing their forecast despite the increased solution scope, or the impact of the increased solution scope will become more and more evident, and the PO will need to consider whether de-scoping any items is practical.

What is critical is to continuously promote the collaboration between the Development Team and the PO regarding the current sprint. They will figure it out, and any issues will create excellent topics for the Retrospective.

Good luck.

> However, PO is not fully convinced with the recommendation to
> have scope reduced? As a scrum master what are the possible
> approaches to handle such a situation?

Think about the continued ability of the Development Team to meet the Sprint Goal. Might a Scrum Master provide focus on that consideration, to help the team and the PO collaborate and find a remedy?

Hi,

The scope, the sprint backlog in that case should not change, the team goes for the sprint goal, the team can identifies new tasks and update the product backlog task and of course renegotiate the sprint backlog is its necessary but it's shouldn't happens to stay the team focus and productive.

Best,
Gabriel