Peter is a new Product Owner on a newly formed Scrum Team. Peter has projected a product completion date based on an estimated velocity of 21 completed points per Sprint. After the first 3 Sprints…

Question

Options

• AThe Sprints have failed to produce shippable Increments there for opportunities to inspect and
• BThe Scrum Master would coach the team on improving their estimations and commitment to
• CExtend the Sprint in order to complete the Sprint Backlog items.
• DInform Peter that the projected completion date is not correct. The Development team would

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  9% (3)
• C
  12% (4)
• D
  76% (26)

Explanation

Option D is correct because Scrum is built on transparency and empiricism - when actual velocity (15 points) differs significantly from the projection (21 points), the Product Owner has an obligation to update stakeholders with a revised completion date based on real data, not assumptions. Continuing to manage to an invalid forecast violates the Scrum value of transparency.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is incomplete reasoning - while missing shippable Increments is a serious issue, simply noting the missed opportunity doesn't address the forecasting problem or Peter's stakeholder responsibilities.
• B misplaces responsibility - the Scrum Master can coach, but the core issue here is not estimation accuracy, it's that Peter needs to reforecast based on the team's demonstrated capacity.
• C directly violates Scrum - Sprint length is fixed for the duration of a project. Extending a Sprint to "finish the backlog" undermines the Sprint's time-box and hides the team's true velocity.

Memory tip: Think of the Product Owner as the forecast owner. Whenever real data (actual velocity) contradicts the plan, the PO must update the forecast - just like a navigator who adjusts the ETA when actual speed differs from estimated speed. "New data = new date."

No community discussion yet for this question.