Council wants a weekly percent-complete number for a multi-year permitting modernization whose remaining scope is still uncertain. What should the Product Owner offer instead?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Percent-complete on a moving permitting scope is like saying the road is 70% finished while the map is still being drawn. Show burn-up toward a Product Goal and say what is still unknown. Council can handle uncertainty; they cannot use a fake percentage.
Full Explanation
Percent-complete against a multi-year permitting modernization whose remaining scope is still being discovered systematically misleads because the denominator is not stable. The Product Owner should offer a burn-up toward a Product Goal plus remaining uncertainty instead of a fake weekly percent-complete on unstable scope. That pairing gives council inspectable progress without pretending discovery of permit types is finished. Providing no transparency at all because Scrum supposedly forbids sharing progress with elected officials misstates Scrum; empiricism requires transparency, not secrecy from council. Earned-value SPI and CPI calculated against a frozen work-breakdown structure recreate the same completeness myth in traditional project clothing and are not the Product Owner's forecast tool for an uncertain permitting backlog. Exam caveat: advanced Product Ownership measures progress against goals and evidence, not against a fictional fixed scope percentage. Operational check: show burn-up of Done work toward the current Product Goal, list major unknowns still in discovery, and refuse any dashboard that divides finished features by an original multi-year list that is still changing each Sprint.