The food-safety inspection team cut permit wait time after a WIP-limit experiment. A director asks whether that counts as performance. What should the Scrum Master / Team Coach say?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If wait time dropped after a WIP-limit experiment, that is not a lucky accident—it is evidence. The food-safety team ran a change and the queue moved. That is a real performance signal, not a side note.
Full Explanation
When a food-safety inspection team cut permit wait time after a WIP-limit experiment, that improved wait time is valid performance evidence the Scrum Master / Team Coach should treat seriously. Experiments that improve resident-facing flow are stronger signals than story theater. Ignoring wait time and grading only on stories closed that PI discards the outcome the experiment produced. Sending the experiment to the RTE as an ART-level audit finding may share learning, but treating it only as an audit item rather than team performance evidence misses the coaching point. Replacing wait time with a predictive critical-path variance for the inspection queue drifts into predictive schedule control rather than Agile flow learning. Exam caveat: SASM recognizes outcome and flow improvements from team experiments as performance evidence; story counts alone and critical-path variance as the replacement score are distractors. Operational check: capture the before/after permit wait time from the WIP-limit experiment, present it with quality safeguards (inspection integrity unchanged), keep the WIP limit if results hold, and share the pattern in Coach Sync for other civic teams. Re-measure after the next demand spike to confirm the gain is durable.