Please see previous post for the context.
Lack of prioritization (within Sprint).
The overall result (certainly from a PO view point) is nothing delivered. Many teams see this in a very different way. This reminds me of a story: Mike was looking for his shoes, and his servant who was responsible for taking care of them was trying to find them. All the while Mike’s irritation was increasing, after some time the servant said in a voice where consolation and triumph were nicely blended “Well here’s one shoe!”. To which Mike replied “What’s the good of one shoe, you duffer!”.
Well, what of the poor PO. What did (s)he get for the patience? Nothing!
The team has worked and actually done(on the average) about 80% of each item!
This statement demonstrates the inherent weakness of the traditional means of assessing s/w development progress. In other words percentage done. In the Scrum world we should strive to get a story/item ‘done‘ unambiguously in accordance with a strong DoD. But I digress somewhat….
So the vital point is that: it is better to complete 80% of the items 100% (ie ‘done‘), than do 100% of the item 80% (ie, none are done). This is possible if the priority of items/stories chosen for a sprint is considered and acted upon. So the higher priority stories must be taken up first, and all efforts must be made to complete these, before focusing on the completion of the lower priority items. This consciously applied pretty much ensures that the PO gets at least a couple of items. Moreover they are very possibly the highest priority items! So the PO can potentially derive value out of them sooner. The SRM cannot be viewed as a disaster, an important benefit.