The shelter-intake team "hits every commitment" by sandbagging Team PI Objectives. How should the Scrum Master / Team Coach read that record?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Hitting every objective by aiming at the floor is a shelter that only promises empty beds it already has. One hundred percent can be fear, not excellence. Look at stretch, committed work, and whether intake actually improved.
Full Explanation
A shelter-intake team that "hits every commitment" by sandbagging Team PI Objectives presents incomplete performance evidence; the Scrum Master / Team Coach should look at stretch versus committed work and actual resident outcomes, not celebrate a sandbagged one hundred percent hit rate as high performance. Sandbagging optimizes the score while under-promising capacity residents could have used for faster, safer intake. Celebrating one hundred percent as the definition of high performance rewards fear of stretch and teaches the ART to distrust commitment numbers. Raising next PI's commitments by copying this PI's sandbagged list locks undercommitment into the baseline. Fining the Product Owner whenever an objective is missed increases sandbagging incentives rather than honesty about capacity and risk. Exam caveat: SASM reads commitment reliability in context with ambition and outcomes; perfect hit rates can signal sandbagging, not excellence, especially when stretch work never appears. Operational check: review committed versus stretch objectives with the shelter team, compare outcomes for residents (intake time, abandoned intakes, safety incidents) to the hit-rate story, coach more honest forecasting, and show leadership both reliability and ambition measures. Avoid punishment schemes that teach hiding capacity, and verify the next PI includes meaningful stretch without returning to sandbag theater.