On an agile project, some of the development team is struggling to understand how the tasks and user stories fit into the overall product.
How should this be addressed?
On an agile project, some of the development team is struggling to understand how the tasks and user stories fit into the overall product.
How should this be addressed?
To help the development team understand how the tasks and user stories fit into the overall product, creating a story map for the minimal viable product (MVP) functionality is the best approach. A story map provides a visual representation of the product's functionality, allowing team members to see how individual stories and tasks contribute to the broader objectives of the project. This approach ensures that everyone has a clear and shared understanding of the project's goals and how their work fits into achieving those goals.
B is also make sense. SM is responsible to communicate the vision with the team before each iteration/sprint, not PO.
I would go for B. The story map for MVP would help team to understand how the the stories/tasks fit into the product.
Please be sure it is not the vision to be asked, instead, it asked how the tasks and the stories fit into the overall product. Story Mapping or User Story Mapping is a technique used in product discovery: outlining a new product or a new feature for an existing product. Therefore, it is B. Do you know how the PO is able to explain that? Vision is more simple to explain rather than how they fit into the product. It needs more detail and the story map is ideal to explain that.
(D) does not make sense to me. The developers might understand the product vision but not how their actual tasks fit into it. Also the development team does not care about the release plan. (C) This should be addressed in the retrospective. The question is whether this is enough. It seems the team needs immediate guidance. (B) Not sure how this would help (A) If the iteration goal was well drafted, then this would help. The question is whether the goal is meaningful. In a real world I would go for (A) and (C). Here I have to pick one. Not sure.
I would go for A.
I choose A
i vote B
It is not about (C)more details of tasks or (A) iteration goal to know the product vision. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough, product map is better, hence (D)
The moderator can delete this answer
It is not about (C)more details of tasks or (A) iteration goal to know the product vision. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough to know the product vision , hence (D)there is the product roadmap in the release plan to know the product vision.
It is not (C)more details of tasks or (A) the iteration goal can share product vision to the team. I will go for D or B, however, (B)story map is not good enough to know the product vision , hence (D)there is the product roadmap in the release plan to know it.
D is the correct answer.
D - correct A - waste B - MVP is not about the product vision, but strategy how to fulfill the vision C - retro is about how last sprint went, focused discussing on tasks, but not enough to capture the vision
It is B. "The story map for MVP would help the team to understand how the stories fit into the product." The question does not ask for any vision. It asks simply how they understand to fit them into the product.
I thought A is correct answer
for option C: Retrospectives are valuable for continuous improvement, but this option delays addressing the immediate need for understanding. so I go with the D