Value for the building-permit product is discussed only at the annual budget hearing. What should the Product Owner change?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Once-a-year value talk is like checking the reservoir after the drought. Sprint Review is the regular look at whether the permit product actually helped anyone. Bring stakeholders there and inspect the outcomes while there is still time to adapt.
Full Explanation
Empiricism requires frequent inspection of product value. For a building-permit product, the Product Owner should inspect realized and expected value with stakeholders at each Sprint Review, not only at the annual budget hearing. Keeping an annual-only cadence so elected officials are not bothered makes adaptation too late. Moving value inspection to the Sprint Retrospective so only the Scrum Team reviews outcomes misuses the Retrospective and excludes stakeholders. Publishing a five-year value scorecard and stopping inspection until the next plan cycle freezes learning. Exam caveat: Sprint Review is the primary stakeholder value inspection loop. Operational check: add Current Value and forecast discussion to every Sprint Review agenda, invite permit stakeholders, adapt the Product Backlog from that inspection, and use annual hearings to summarize evidence already gathered—not to discover value for the first time. Building-permit value inspection belongs in every Sprint Review with stakeholders; annual hearings are too slow for empiricism. Use hearings to summarize evidence already gathered across Reviews, not to discover value once a year. Put realized versus expected value as a standing Sprint Review agenda item for permits, with elected-office liaisons invited, so annual hearings only roll up already-inspected evidence.