최신Scrum Professional Scrum Master level III (PSM III) - PSM-III무료샘플문제
문제1
Describe the difference between feature and component teams, and how they hold up when viewed from the perspective ofthe Scrum Guide.
Describe the difference between feature and component teams, and how they hold up when viewed from the perspective ofthe Scrum Guide.
정답:
In Scrum, team structure significantly impacts the ability to deliver value. Two commonly discussed structures arecomponent teamsandfeature teams. Although the Scrum Guide does not explicitly define these terms, it strongly favors the characteristics of feature teams through its definition of a Scrum Team.
Component teamsare organized around technical specialties or system components, such as database, frontend, or middleware teams. Their work typically represents partial contributions to a product feature, requiring coordination and handoffs across multiple teams to deliver customer value. As a result, component teams often introduce dependencies, delay integration, and struggle to produce a usable Increment independently within a Sprint.
Feature teams, in contrast, are organized around delivering complete product features or Product Backlog Items. They are cross-functional and possess all the skills required to design, build, test, and deliver a "Done" Increment of value. Feature teams minimize dependencies and can independently deliver customer-facing functionality each Sprint.
From theScrum Guide perspective, feature teams align more closely with Scrum principles:
* The Scrum Guide states thatScrum Teams are cross-functional, which directly supports feature teams and challenges component team structures.
* Scrum requires each Sprint to produce ausable Increment. Feature teams can meet this expectation, while component teams usually cannot without reliance on other teams.
* Scrum is based onempiricism(transparency, inspection, and adaptation). Reduced dependencies in feature teams improve transparency and enable faster inspection and adaptation.
* Scrum emphasizesvalue delivery and accountability. Feature teams maintain clear ownership of outcomes, whereas component teams fragment accountability across technical silos.
While component teams may exist due to legacy structures or technical constraints, they represent organizational impediments rather than an ideal Scrum implementation. From a Professional Scrum Master III perspective, moving toward feature teams supports agility, improves value delivery, and better enables Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide.
Component teamsare organized around technical specialties or system components, such as database, frontend, or middleware teams. Their work typically represents partial contributions to a product feature, requiring coordination and handoffs across multiple teams to deliver customer value. As a result, component teams often introduce dependencies, delay integration, and struggle to produce a usable Increment independently within a Sprint.
Feature teams, in contrast, are organized around delivering complete product features or Product Backlog Items. They are cross-functional and possess all the skills required to design, build, test, and deliver a "Done" Increment of value. Feature teams minimize dependencies and can independently deliver customer-facing functionality each Sprint.
From theScrum Guide perspective, feature teams align more closely with Scrum principles:
* The Scrum Guide states thatScrum Teams are cross-functional, which directly supports feature teams and challenges component team structures.
* Scrum requires each Sprint to produce ausable Increment. Feature teams can meet this expectation, while component teams usually cannot without reliance on other teams.
* Scrum is based onempiricism(transparency, inspection, and adaptation). Reduced dependencies in feature teams improve transparency and enable faster inspection and adaptation.
* Scrum emphasizesvalue delivery and accountability. Feature teams maintain clear ownership of outcomes, whereas component teams fragment accountability across technical silos.
While component teams may exist due to legacy structures or technical constraints, they represent organizational impediments rather than an ideal Scrum implementation. From a Professional Scrum Master III perspective, moving toward feature teams supports agility, improves value delivery, and better enables Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide.
문제2
The definition of "Done" describes the work that must be completed for every Product Backlog item before it can be deemed releasable. What should the Development Team do when, during the Sprint, it finds out that a problem outside of their control blocks them from doing all this work?
The definition of "Done" describes the work that must be completed for every Product Backlog item before it can be deemed releasable. What should the Development Team do when, during the Sprint, it finds out that a problem outside of their control blocks them from doing all this work?
정답:
When the Development Team discovers during a Sprint that a problemoutside of their controlprevents them from completing all work required by theDefinition of Done, this situation must be addressed through transparency, inspection, and adaptation, rather than by lowering standards.
1. Make the Impediment Transparent Immediately
The Development Team shouldmake the issue visible as soon as it is discovered. This includes:
* Raising it in theDaily Scrum,
* Clearly stating how it impacts the Sprint Goal and the Definition of Done.
Transparency is critical so that inspection and adaptation are based on reality, not assumptions.
2. Do Not Compromise the Definition of Done
The Definition of Done mustnot be relaxed or bypassedto "get something done." Lowering quality destroys transparency and creates false progress. If the Definition of Done cannot be met, the work isnot Doneand should not be considered releasable.
3. Collaborate to Adapt the Sprint Backlog
The Development Team should collaborate with theProduct Ownerto inspect the impact and adapt the Sprint Backlog. This may include:
* Removing or adjusting affected Product Backlog Items,
* Focusing on work that can still meet the Definition of Done,
* Preserving theSprint Goal, if possible.
4. Escalate the Impediment Through the Scrum Master
Because the problem is outside the team's control, it qualifies as animpediment. The Scrum Master must help remove or mitigate it by working with the organization or external parties. If the impediment cannot be resolved quickly, its impact should be addressed in planning and stakeholder communication.
1. Make the Impediment Transparent Immediately
The Development Team shouldmake the issue visible as soon as it is discovered. This includes:
* Raising it in theDaily Scrum,
* Clearly stating how it impacts the Sprint Goal and the Definition of Done.
Transparency is critical so that inspection and adaptation are based on reality, not assumptions.
2. Do Not Compromise the Definition of Done
The Definition of Done mustnot be relaxed or bypassedto "get something done." Lowering quality destroys transparency and creates false progress. If the Definition of Done cannot be met, the work isnot Doneand should not be considered releasable.
3. Collaborate to Adapt the Sprint Backlog
The Development Team should collaborate with theProduct Ownerto inspect the impact and adapt the Sprint Backlog. This may include:
* Removing or adjusting affected Product Backlog Items,
* Focusing on work that can still meet the Definition of Done,
* Preserving theSprint Goal, if possible.
4. Escalate the Impediment Through the Scrum Master
Because the problem is outside the team's control, it qualifies as animpediment. The Scrum Master must help remove or mitigate it by working with the organization or external parties. If the impediment cannot be resolved quickly, its impact should be addressed in planning and stakeholder communication.
문제3
A fellow Scrum Master asks for your input. His team members see no value in defining a Sprint goal and he has trouble explaining its use to them. What would you tell this Scrum Master?
A fellow Scrum Master asks for your input. His team members see no value in defining a Sprint goal and he has trouble explaining its use to them. What would you tell this Scrum Master?
정답:
If team members see no value in defining a Sprint Goal, this indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of Scrum. As a Scrum Master, I would explain to my fellow Scrum Master that theSprint Goal is a core element of Scrumand is essential for alignment, commitment, and empiricism.
First, the Sprint Goal explainswhy the Scrum Team is doing the work in the Sprint. According to the Scrum Guide, the Sprint Goal is the single objective for the Sprint and provides coherence to the Sprint Backlog. Without a clear "why," Sprint work becomes a collection of unrelated tasks rather than a purposeful effort to deliver value. The Sprint Goal helps the team understand the intent behind the selected Product Backlog Items and aligns daily decisions with that intent.
Second, the Sprint Goal represents acommitment by the Scrum Team. The team commits to doing everything in its power to achieve the Sprint Goal, even though the specific scope may evolve. This commitment fosters focus and shared accountability. Instead of optimizing for individual tasks, the team optimizes for achieving the Sprint Goal as a whole.
Third, the Sprint Goal actuallycreates flexibility rather than restricting it. When new discoveries, risks, or opportunities emerge during the Sprint, the team can adapt the Sprint Backlog as long as those changes do not endanger the Sprint Goal. This allows the team to respond to change while maintaining stability of purpose.
Without a Sprint Goal, change becomes arbitrary and increases the risk of losing focus.
Fourth, the Sprint Goal enables effectiveinspection and adaptation. During the Daily Scrum, the team inspects progress toward the Sprint Goal and adapts their plan accordingly. Similarly, at the Sprint Review, stakeholders can inspect whether the Sprint Goal was met. Without a Sprint Goal, there is no meaningful benchmark for inspection.
Finally, it is important to be clear thatwithout a Sprint Goal, Scrum is not being practiced as intended.
The Sprint Goal is a required element of Scrum, and removing it undermines transparency and weakens the empirical foundation of the framework.
First, the Sprint Goal explainswhy the Scrum Team is doing the work in the Sprint. According to the Scrum Guide, the Sprint Goal is the single objective for the Sprint and provides coherence to the Sprint Backlog. Without a clear "why," Sprint work becomes a collection of unrelated tasks rather than a purposeful effort to deliver value. The Sprint Goal helps the team understand the intent behind the selected Product Backlog Items and aligns daily decisions with that intent.
Second, the Sprint Goal represents acommitment by the Scrum Team. The team commits to doing everything in its power to achieve the Sprint Goal, even though the specific scope may evolve. This commitment fosters focus and shared accountability. Instead of optimizing for individual tasks, the team optimizes for achieving the Sprint Goal as a whole.
Third, the Sprint Goal actuallycreates flexibility rather than restricting it. When new discoveries, risks, or opportunities emerge during the Sprint, the team can adapt the Sprint Backlog as long as those changes do not endanger the Sprint Goal. This allows the team to respond to change while maintaining stability of purpose.
Without a Sprint Goal, change becomes arbitrary and increases the risk of losing focus.
Fourth, the Sprint Goal enables effectiveinspection and adaptation. During the Daily Scrum, the team inspects progress toward the Sprint Goal and adapts their plan accordingly. Similarly, at the Sprint Review, stakeholders can inspect whether the Sprint Goal was met. Without a Sprint Goal, there is no meaningful benchmark for inspection.
Finally, it is important to be clear thatwithout a Sprint Goal, Scrum is not being practiced as intended.
The Sprint Goal is a required element of Scrum, and removing it undermines transparency and weakens the empirical foundation of the framework.
문제4
Technical systems can be decomposed to composite elements, from the large to the small. Basic components may be represented as activities, workflows, functions, features, capabilities, and other similar nomenclature.
How does this system decomposition affect Scrum Teams on scaled projects?
Technical systems can be decomposed to composite elements, from the large to the small. Basic components may be represented as activities, workflows, functions, features, capabilities, and other similar nomenclature.
How does this system decomposition affect Scrum Teams on scaled projects?
정답:
Technical systems are often decomposed into smaller elements such as activities, workflows, functions, features, or components to manage complexity. While decomposition is necessary for understanding and building large systems, it has significant implications forScrum Teams, especially inscaled environments.
1. Risk of Component-Centric Team Structures
When system decomposition drives team structure, organizations often createcomponent or specialist teams aligned to technical layers or functions. In scaled Scrum, this increases:
* Dependencies between teams,
* Coordination overhead,
* Integration risk.
Such structures make it difficult for teams to deliverend-to-end, integrated Incrementseach Sprint, weakening empiricism and delaying feedback.
2. Impact on Value Delivery and Inspection
Scrum relies on frequent inspection ofworking product Increments. If work is decomposed into narrowly defined technical components, individual teams may only deliver partial outputs rather than usable value. This reduces transparency and makes meaningful inspection at the product level harder, especially when multiple teams are involved.
3. Preference for Feature-Oriented Decomposition
Scrum favors decomposing work intovertical, value-oriented slices(features or capabilities) rather than horizontal technical layers. This allows each Scrum Team to be:
* Cross-functional,
* Capable of delivering usable Increments independently,
* Less dependent on other teams.
In scaled projects, feature-oriented decomposition reduces dependencies and improves flow.
4. Effects on Integration and Empiricism
Poor decomposition increases the cost of integration and often leads to late or infrequent integration. Scrum requires that integration happensearly and often, as unintegrated work is not "Done." In scaled Scrum, decomposition choices directly influence whether integration is continuous or deferred, with major implications for risk control.
5. Organizational and Learning Implications
System decomposition also affects learning and adaptability. When teams own complete features rather than isolated components, they gain a better understanding of:
* Customer needs,
* System behavior,
* Trade-offs across the product.
This broader understanding improves decision-making and supports continuous improvement across the system.
1. Risk of Component-Centric Team Structures
When system decomposition drives team structure, organizations often createcomponent or specialist teams aligned to technical layers or functions. In scaled Scrum, this increases:
* Dependencies between teams,
* Coordination overhead,
* Integration risk.
Such structures make it difficult for teams to deliverend-to-end, integrated Incrementseach Sprint, weakening empiricism and delaying feedback.
2. Impact on Value Delivery and Inspection
Scrum relies on frequent inspection ofworking product Increments. If work is decomposed into narrowly defined technical components, individual teams may only deliver partial outputs rather than usable value. This reduces transparency and makes meaningful inspection at the product level harder, especially when multiple teams are involved.
3. Preference for Feature-Oriented Decomposition
Scrum favors decomposing work intovertical, value-oriented slices(features or capabilities) rather than horizontal technical layers. This allows each Scrum Team to be:
* Cross-functional,
* Capable of delivering usable Increments independently,
* Less dependent on other teams.
In scaled projects, feature-oriented decomposition reduces dependencies and improves flow.
4. Effects on Integration and Empiricism
Poor decomposition increases the cost of integration and often leads to late or infrequent integration. Scrum requires that integration happensearly and often, as unintegrated work is not "Done." In scaled Scrum, decomposition choices directly influence whether integration is continuous or deferred, with major implications for risk control.
5. Organizational and Learning Implications
System decomposition also affects learning and adaptability. When teams own complete features rather than isolated components, they gain a better understanding of:
* Customer needs,
* System behavior,
* Trade-offs across the product.
This broader understanding improves decision-making and supports continuous improvement across the system.