After the PI System Demo and measures, the parks ART ignores that evidence and picks a pet peeve. How should the Scrum Master / Team Coach ground problem selection?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A pet peeve is a pebble in someone's shoe, not the PI's evidence. Parks just showed a demo and measures. Pick the problem from that data, not from whoever complained first.
Full Explanation
Problem selection should come from the PI System Demo and metrics just reviewed, not from an unmeasured pet peeve. Parks ARTs that ignore evidence waste I&A on gripes disconnected from resident outcomes. The Scrum Master / Team Coach grounds selection in the inspection just completed. Creativity without evidence is still guesswork.
Allowing the pet peeve because “any problem is better than using last PI’s data” rejects empiricism. Letting the loudest manager pick regardless of the demo rewards volume. Ignoring measures so the workshop feels creative disconnects solutions from reality.
Exam caveat: evidence from demo and measures drives problem choice. Operational check: list candidate parks problems only from demo/metrics observations before voting.
Municipal ARTs feel problem-solving workshop quality as clearer permits, fairer housing intake, steadier water billing, and fewer blame cycles in public service. Facilitate evidence-based causes, restated problems, owned experiments, and follow-through into iteration events so residents experience the improvement. Re-check the improvement backlog at the next team sync. Re-check the improvement backlog at the next team sync. Re-check the improvement backlog at the next team sync.