The water-quality-report team treats built-in quality as the QA person's job, so developers throw work over the wall. What should the Scrum Master/Team Coach coach toward?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
If only the QA person owns water-quality reports, developers are tossing buckets over a fence and hoping. Quality is a whole-team job. A wall, a single approver, or a vendor still leaves the fence in place.
Full Explanation
Built-in quality is a whole-team responsibility. When the water-quality-report team treats quality as the QA person’s job, developers throw work over the wall and flow gains a handoff queue plus late discovery. The Scrum Master/Team Coach should coach whole-team quality so developers, QA, and others share ownership of report correctness instead of a separate QA phase.
A separate QA phase after developers declare stories complete fails by concept: it recreates waterfall handoffs and delayed learning. A single QA owner who must approve every commit before the team may move on fails by concept by creating a specialist bottleneck and disempowering the team. Outsourcing quality so the civic team never inspects reports fails by concept because accountability for public water-quality information cannot be fully thrown over an external wall.
Exam caveat: SAFe’s built-in quality principle assigns quality to the team delivering the increment; QA specialists amplify capability rather than owning quality alone. Whole-team quality still uses skilled testing roles—just not as a late separate phase that defines done.
Operational check: redefine DoD so automated and exploratory checks happen before “complete,” pair developers with QA on water-quality-report stories, eliminate the throw-over-the-wall column, and track return-from-verify and flow time improvements.