Scrum Guide: 7 things to change in the 2020 update.

I mostly disagree. 1. Development can happen anywhere, not just in "IT". Scrum is for developing complex products or services (one of the 1st sentences in the Scrum Guide). Also in my eyes one the biggest advantages of Scrum is to put "business" and execution into one team, in order to force collaboration. PO needs to be part of the Scrum Team therefore - in my eyes also and especially in a scaled environment (Scrum@Scale provides a very organic solution here, it is not just LeSS and SAFe out there!) 2. Pretty indifferent, both would be suitable terms. 3, 4: Scaling frameworks like LeSS are already Scrum compatible. Keep scaling out the Scrum Guide to reduce complexity. 5. The product is in responsibility of the PO (what) and the DevTeam (how). SMs shall care about improving collaboration among them, give them what they need to work efficiently and keep interruptions low. Also the part of organizational design apart from the team (the higher purpose) is left out by many organizations I saw, but very crutial. How better could it be? Having one person, understanding all levels and having direct feedback about the impacts of changes on the operational "shop floor" from with a Scrum team. 6. I could imagine small companies (e.g. startups), that do not have these SMEs - with this change, Scrum would only be possible in larger organisations - disagree. Also the dependencies to outside of the team must be kept as low as possible in order to give the Scrum team even a chance to be agile (flexible, adaptable and so on). 7. Although a vision is good and helpful, I do not see the point to make it mandatory. We could also include all the story point, burndown chart, scrum board etc. -stuff, but why? Scrum works nicely with and without these things as well. So keep it generic and lean. Bonus: Scrum Coach - that could be beneficial indeed. PO -> Product Manager: Clear no to this. Strong disagreement. The product is "managed" by the market and user needs, not by a person or role or function. At least in a complex environment, which Scrum is made for. Overall I am really looking forward to next week's announcment of the changes. Teasers say, the Scrum Guide will be leaned out to 13 pages :) - maybe this helps for people to read it at least once before having the need to change the implementation before having understood the purpose of each Scrum element and the systemic interaction and dependencies among them.

1. Sure? 2. Nope, that's confusing the framework with an implementation. 3. Nope, that's for scaling frameworks and complicates the picture needlessly. 4. The Scrum Guide is not a Scaled Scrum Guide, so nope. 5. Confusing the role with the implementation, and nope, bad idea. 6. Nope, that assumes a commercial application. 7. Again, the Scrum Guide is not the Scaled Scrum Guide. You're forcing large implementations. Bonus: Scrum Coach? Again confusing the framework role with a function. Product Owner to Product Manager: Worst. Idea. Ever. So nah, let's not do your suggestions. I trust Ken & Jeff, they've done pretty well so far.

Ricardo Duranti

Cool. Love it. Maybe just instead of "Product Manager" some other name ?? Value Maximizer? Visionary? Strategist? Product Driver? Steering Gear?

My top suggestion would be to add an *Improvement Increment* as a new artefact on a par with the Product Increment — i.e. make visible the (non-zero!) experiments and adaptations that the team have worked on in the preceding sprint. [The name could do with some work!]