Should the Product Owner be an active member of the Scrum team

A couple of days ago, there was a post on one of the agile groups on Linkedin asking whether or not the Product Owner should be an active member of a Scrum team. The post went on to ask if the P.O. is actually assigned tasks on the Sprint backlog.

I have seen similar posts on other forums as well. And I am amazed by just how many folks think the P.O. should not be a part of the team. Many individuals actually stated that they did not even want the P.O. to be a part of the retrospective. This folks, is a sad state of affairs.

By definition, Scrum defines three roles and last I checked, the P.O. was one of the three roles. In my book, there's simply no discussion here. In fact the Product Owner goes beyond being an active member of the Scrum team - he in fact drives the direction of team and defines the priorities for the team. Often, the Product Owner is the customer proxy and as a result is involved from the beginning and right through the entire development life-cycle.

I have written a previous blog dedicated to the role of the product owner so I won't re-hash this role's responsibilities here. But I will say that that the P.O. role goes way beyond just the product backlog. To some extent the P.O. is even responsible for the quality of the product - assisting the team with the definition of user story acceptance tests in order that the team can build a product that fully meets the customer requirements.

From my perspective the Product Owner should attend all the upfront planning meetings, as many of the daily stand-ups as possible, the demo and the retrospective.

The sooner teams learn to live with the Product Owner the better and projects that have actively engaged product owners, will most definitely stand a better chance of success. Our Product Owners are all involved and have tasks on the company's product backlogs.

Let me know what you think. Perhaps you have a different outlook? What's your experience. Is it working for you?

Written by Jack Milunksy - COO at Brightspark, certified ScrumMaster and Co-founder of Agilebuddy (Agile project management software that lets you easily Create, Estimate, Plan and Track your software development projects). For great Agile tips follow Jack at: www.twitter.com/agilebuddy. To get more info on Agilebuddy please visit: www.agilebuddy.com

Comments

[Björn]

I thought the real question was: can the Product Owner also be a Team Member? Since those are two separate roles within Scrum, it is technically possible for one person to have both of those roles, but it is certainly not a requirement.

Jeff Sutherland says that having a Team Member also perform the role of Product Owner can be undesirable, because you emphasize different risks and rewards in each of those roles. That may bias the team against delivering customer value, and in favor of "whiz-bang" stories that are fun to work on or stories that are easier to complete.

In that sense, I think that it is a good idea for those roles to be separate. Ideally you should have a customer stakeholder or business leader (but not necessarily a direct Team manager) have the role of Product Owner, and not give this role to a technical person.

That does not preclude the Product Owner from taking on tasks within the iteration, as long as they are appropriate to the role. And the Product Owner should always be available to the team.

[ScrumGuy]

The real answer is that it depends. If you want to use the book as justification, you should know Ken's first books described the PO as a separate role from the team, while his last book still described a Scrum Development Team as distinct from the Scrum Team that includes the PO.

Because the Product Owner has a different kind of authority, we have to be aware of his effect on team self organization. Let the team decide, rather than make one prescription for everyone.

[Jack Milunsky]

I complete agree that the P.O. is a separately defined role, but they're an active team participant in my opinion. They part of the team as is the Scrum Master. And therefore they need to be engaged and available every step of the way.

Thanks for your insight.
Jack

[Jonathan Bier]

Since the product owner is not supposed to interrupt the sprint with new requirements or prioritization, I personally believe they should not be an active member of the Scrum team. I would generally not want the Product Owner in my Daily Scrum meeting.

[Jack Milunsky]

Interestingly, I just read a great white paper on the role of the product owner and product manager by Dean Leffingwell. He suggests most definitely that the Product Owner is a part of the Scrum team. However he also suggests that there is still a need for the Product Manager in the organization. That person is more outward facing, more strategic etc.

I still vote for having an active product manager on the team.

[Peer Allan]

I agree that an active PO is critical. Our PO tries to be involved in as much as possible with our day to day work. Their biggest complaints usually rise from when we don't keep them involved more. That said our PO is not grabbing tasks off the sprint backlog unless it involves setting up a meeting with another stakeholder in the company.

The retrospective is where we have had the most trouble and its related to the comment above about self-management of the team. When the PO is in our retrospective he tended to dictate to the team how he wanted it to organize. The team would tend to just fold and do things the way the PO wanted, which caused some rifts in the team.

After all that there is a twist to my story in that our PO is also our functional manager. A combination I have never agreed with, but that's another topic...

[Rod Claar]

What a great discussion! The real answer is that it takes understanding of the culture and the people to know the right answer. Sometimes a PO is not available as much as we would like (which should mean shorter sprints) other times the PO is too hands on and does not let the team do their best. When I start new teams using Scrum I ask the PO to let the team form and not interfere too much and as they progress if the PO can help the team I encourage them to get more involved. That is one of the many reasons why an Agile Coach is so important.

Rod Claar
http://rod-claar.net

[Jack Milunsky]

Thanks for your insight Rod.

[René Laroche]

A scrum team consist of 3 things: P.O., S.M., and teammates. Thoses 3 are what defines the TEAM. People that try to put the P.O. outside the team do not understand the benefits it gives to the team. Working as a team raise the probability to create success stories. Barriers always create conflicts. The P.O. have it's own role in the team but must be in it!! :)

[Jack Milunsky]

Hi Rene

Really well said - short and to the point. Appreciate your feedback.

Jack

[Ari Tikka]

Having the PO as a member of the team may work fine, but I doubt it works as Scrum intends. I bet it will create a traditional strong team leader pattern.

First. Scrum creates the negotiation and measurement between the customer needs and production capabilities. (Sprint planning and review, backlog and velocity) Choosing this so central and transparent makes Scrum truly ingenious and unique. Having the PO as a member of the team will confuse this.

Second. Lets assume that the single wringable neck, who decides where we invest time and money, is an "ordinary" member of the group in everyday work. Smells fake. The power differences in the group will be balanced only if the other members are equal caliber in some other sense. Not very common.

If the PO's capacity is needed to support the team, I would recommend that he acts as an external resource for the team. Having this kind of consultants for teams happens often in big organizations, and is not so dangerous for the basic principles of Scrum.

I would also question, when a true PO has the capacity to participate to the team's work? In my experience the PO has a lot of business work. If the PO has the time to work for the sprint goal, I smell that she is some kind of messenger, not the real PO.

[Jack milunsky]

Hi Ari,

While there are many folks who would agree with your thoughts on this topic, I don't. I personally think that if you can get the PO working well with the team you get 1+1>2.

I realize that there are many PO's that either don't cut it, or like you say they may be so over-powering that it creates a power imbalance but then, I suggest it's best to replace the PO. I just don't buy excluding the PO from the team. It's counter-productive.

Additionally, if it's a large project there may be multiple PO's responsible, but there are ways to deal with this.

I still say that the PO is king from the perspective of what gets built and when. PO is representative of the customer and stakeholders.

Jack

[Travis Birch]

Thanks everyone for the comments and insights. At the heart of this discussion seems to be a need to clarify a distinction between "Scrum team membership" and "Scrum roles". The three defined roles may cause some confusion here: Team Member, ScrumMaster and Product Owner. The role definitions do not necessarily define membership; in other words, just because "Team Member" is a defined role in Scrum, it does not mean that the other two roles are not members of the team. One way of clarifying this is to say that all Scrum roles are filled by team members, and that the ScrumMaster and Product owner are the two members of a Scrum team with specific and unique roles, responsibilities and realms of authority.

Since the Product Owner is responsible for communicating and prioritizing business value to the team in collaboration with stakeholders (including all team members!), the specific duties of a Product Owner, therefore (much like those of a ScrumMaster, in this sense) should really be a full-time job. Chances are, if the Product Owner has time to work on tasks in the Sprint Plan, then this person is not fulfilling all of his or her duties and responsibilities to the team (communicating with all stakeholders, preparing the Product Backlog for the next Sprint, working closely with each team member to ensure that the value of each Product Backlog Item is well understood and that learning from the work of the Sprint is always informing the maintenance of the Backlog, etc.) Furthermore, if this is the case, then it is the responsibility of the ScrumMaster to coach the Product Owner develop the skills and capabilities required to fulfill the responsibilities of his or her role and work to remove organizational obstacles that may require the Product Owner to fulfill other duties (most Product Owners I know struggle with juggling another full-time job!).

[Jack Milunsky]

Awesome feedback Travis. I especially appreciate the following comment "The role definitions do not necessarily define membership"

Jack

[Anil Apte]

>> To some extent the P.O. is even responsible for the quality of the product <<

I wonder how many POs are psychologically ready to accept this responsibility and how many companies actually enforce this.

Great idea but utopian?

[Jack Milunsky]

I don't think it's utopian. I think with training this is quite doable. In fact the Agile Alliance and many others offer courses specifically for Product Owners. I think it is beneficial.

Jack

[Tomasz Łasica]

One good reason to keep PE outsid the team is that she has to be objective. She is responsible for business value of the project, priorities etc. As a team memeber she may not be objective if the work is DONE, if it's exactly what was needed etc. She only has to be available for the team. E.g. during Sprint Planning meeting she can accept test scenarios for user stories.

It the PO is not a part of the retrospective, he should not get involved unless the team ask her/him to join. Restrospective aims at improving TEAM process, not influenced by external people (probably management or marketing).

[Tomasz Łasica]

One good reason to keep PE outsid the team is that she has to be objective. She is responsible for business value of the project, priorities etc. As a team memeber she may not be objective if the work is DONE, if it's exactly what was needed etc. She only has to be available for the team. E.g. during Sprint Planning meeting she can accept test scenarios for user stories.

It the PO is not a part of the retrospective, he should not get involved unless the team ask her/him to join. Restrospective aims at improving TEAM process, not influenced by external people (probably management or marketing).

[Jack Milunsky]

Hi Tomasz,

I appreciate your feedback. But I frankly can't see a scenario where this makes sense. The PO must be part of the team. The PO still needs to be objective like you say. He/she is 100% respobsible for the direction, and priorities and the Scrum Team knows this. There should be no tension in this regard.

A team that includes the PO will 100% out perform a team where the PO is outside.

I have seen this work well and I couldn't think of a reason not to try it.

Jack

[Bart]

We keep the PO outside of the team as much as possible. The problem we face is the fact that in our organization the PO role is performed by the traditional (human resource) managers. By allowing him or her more close into the team, the team's self - organization is disturb. Any thoughts on this?

[Jack Milunsky]

My thoughts on this are very definite. PO needs to be part of the team. Human resources acting as PO is a recipe for disaster. This role is very tough and starts with the need for domain expertise. I don't see how Human Resources can be successful here.

My other thought is that they're parachuting HR in in order to spy on the developers due to lack of trust.

This smells really bad. Hope this helps.

Jack

[Karen Favazza Spencer]

It's fascinating to see the different opinions!

My Opinion: The PO takes on some, but not all, the traditional Project Manager responsibilities as well as representing the Voice of the Customer. This is a powerful role. Consequently, the PO is at risk for taking on too much of a command and control persona if present at meetings which are intended to empower the team.

Consequently, I agree with the majority opinion, that the PO, although a part of the team, should NOT be present at the Retrospective, which should be "behind closed doors." Neither should the PO, the leader in Sprint Planning Part 1 (the story sizing), be a participant in Sprint Planning Part 2 (the story selection and task estimation).

The bottom line is we know that both an under engaged PO and an over engaged PO results in an Agile smell, i.e. lowers team productivity. We also know that the SM has a responsibility to both develop the PO into a strong VOC and protect the team from a bullying PO. Injecting the PO into these two team meetings is putting him somewhere where he has no purpose, but can influence results about which he has no expertise.

[ecommerce developers]

The PO must be part of the team. The PO still needs to be objective like you say. He/she is 100% responsible for the direction, and priorities and the Scrum Team knows this. There should be no tension in this regard. Consequently, the PO is at risk for taking on too much of a command and control persona if present at meetings which are intended to empower the team

[Jack Milunsky]

I'd rather train the PM to not be so much of a control freak. But to be there for the team to answer questions. I find this keeps things moving forward nicely. I can imagine that with certain personalities this can be a problem. I on the other hand have had good experience with this.

Jack
www.agilebuddy.com

[Andrew Warren]

Really interesting discussion - thanks.

I'm wondering if part of the confusion around this discussion is terminology... i.e. what does "team member" mean?

If we are talking about the whole Scrum team - then of course the PO is a member, along with the SM and the "Team" (developers etc). It seems to me though that what some people really mean when they say "team member" is "technical member on the team" (such as developer, tester, BA, etc). So the question then really becomes, should one of the team's technical staff also be the Product Owner? Or to put it another way, should the Product Owner be cutting code on the project?

To my mind, this represents a fundamental conflict of interest. While everyone on the team is working towards the same global goal, the agendas of the techies will be different to the PO's agenda - and necessarily so. This is part of the built-in tension that keeps things in balance. Without this difference in perspective things are at risk of rapidly getting out of control.

For a PO to be directly contributing to the team by means of taking technical tasks from the Sprint Backlog seems wrong to me. It would be a very special person indeed who has the capacity to function effectively as a peer in the technical team, and then change hats to be the PO and drive a different agenda.

Is it possible? Maybe. Is it desirable? I don't think so.

I'm interested to hear any stories from people who have actually seen this work.