Can a Product Owner start testing while a item is in code review
We have a product owner who starts testing while a item is in code Review and give feedback to developers. I see the point of view from a product owner to give feedback quicker, however I don't think she needs to start testing in code review stage but rather wait when the item is ready for testing, Because we have testers.
I've got feedback from the team that "Tasks turn around time is slower (Testing seems to be slow at times)"
Any ideas on this topic?
My suggestions/Solution is:
- Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck.
I know this is an obvious question but I would like to hear if someone encountered something similar and what did they do to fix it.
scrum product-owner testing
|
show 4 more comments
We have a product owner who starts testing while a item is in code Review and give feedback to developers. I see the point of view from a product owner to give feedback quicker, however I don't think she needs to start testing in code review stage but rather wait when the item is ready for testing, Because we have testers.
I've got feedback from the team that "Tasks turn around time is slower (Testing seems to be slow at times)"
Any ideas on this topic?
My suggestions/Solution is:
- Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck.
I know this is an obvious question but I would like to hear if someone encountered something similar and what did they do to fix it.
scrum product-owner testing
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
1
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
We have a product owner who starts testing while a item is in code Review and give feedback to developers. I see the point of view from a product owner to give feedback quicker, however I don't think she needs to start testing in code review stage but rather wait when the item is ready for testing, Because we have testers.
I've got feedback from the team that "Tasks turn around time is slower (Testing seems to be slow at times)"
Any ideas on this topic?
My suggestions/Solution is:
- Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck.
I know this is an obvious question but I would like to hear if someone encountered something similar and what did they do to fix it.
scrum product-owner testing
We have a product owner who starts testing while a item is in code Review and give feedback to developers. I see the point of view from a product owner to give feedback quicker, however I don't think she needs to start testing in code review stage but rather wait when the item is ready for testing, Because we have testers.
I've got feedback from the team that "Tasks turn around time is slower (Testing seems to be slow at times)"
Any ideas on this topic?
My suggestions/Solution is:
- Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck.
I know this is an obvious question but I would like to hear if someone encountered something similar and what did they do to fix it.
scrum product-owner testing
scrum product-owner testing
edited 10 hours ago
tiagoperes
468218
468218
asked 11 hours ago
inzefiniteinzefinite
286
286
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
1
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
1
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
1
1
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
In favor of eliminating waste I'd suggest waiting, too.
Assuming a PO's time is more expensive/valuable than a tester's or dev's, simply because of supply and demand as there is only one PO, but multiple devs/testers, the following would be a waste of good PO time:
- Reporting errors that would have been found by a developer anyway
- Reporting errors that would have been found by testers anyway
- Testing the same things again after scheduled changes (Code Review) have been made
In addition, developers might be a little miffed if their work is criticized before they declared it "done". You don't tell a cook their dish is not tasty dragging it out of the oven when the cook insists it's only half-cooked and needs anther 20 minutes. You don't tell people they park like idiot's when they are still in the street moving. In other words, don't tell people they made mistakes when they are not finished yet. It can only be a "bug" if it should work in the first place.
So filing bug tickets will generate wrong metrics afterwards. Many bug tickets means the developers need to work better. But in this case, they weren't even done yet. So your metrics are skewed.
But as always in Scrum: discuss it with the team, see what everybody has to say and find a solution that works for everybody.
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer depends on whether this slows down or speeds up the process.
How many of the bugs she found were discovered during the Code Review phase?
If they were all discovered during the Code Review then maybe she's wasting her (and everybody's time). Though we can still ask:
How many of the bugs she found were fixed before the Code Review stage?
If they all were, then she is saving you time by having you review corrected code with fewer bugs.
And then there's the Type Of Bugs she finds that makes a difference.
A Product Owner would typically check the product for UI issues, wording, typos and aesthetics.
These "bugs" will not be picked up by Code Reviews or the QA department, as they are mainly subjective. (With the exception of typos.) So the sooner she fixes these issues the less work (of retesting) for all involved.
If, on the other hand, she's only finding hard to find bugs that a good Code Review would have picked up in much less time, then maybe it's worth pointing out to her that she's wasting her time.
One last thought: If she's simply taking the product for a quick test-drive and (since she found them) reporting all the trouble she finds, then maybe your coders need better work ethics; if they tested it for a minute before releasing it they would also find and fix these obvious bugs.
add a comment |
I don't see how this is a problem in the first place.
If the problem is that the PO is not available to give feedback or answer questions then this is an entirely different problem. If the PO is testing things and finding bugs then they're saving your team time and effort.
So if they're still available to do all the things you need them to do let them do whatever testing they want and be grateful for their input.
add a comment |
As a general rule I would say that the earlier the Product Owner starts testing the better.
The reason for this is that a lot of bugs happen as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. The Product Owner is uniquely well placed to review and give feedback to a team.
Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck
If the Product Owner discovers an issue in the testing phase, re-work may be required and a repeat of the code review. This could be considered waste if it was possible for the Product Owner to discover the issue earlier in the development cycle.
Some Scrum teams I have worked with got to the point of demonstrating features to the Product Owner during development, let alone waiting for the testing cycle to begin.
If the team currently finds it disruptive to receive early feedback from the Product Owner then I would suggest looking at ways to improve the development process to make this less of a problem.
My recommendation would be to build your development process around a flexible and early feedback cycle. One approach I have seen taken is to have an environment specifically for the Product Owner. When the development team feels they have a stable build they release it to the Product Owner's environment and let her know that there are new features to review. If there are known issues then they should be clearly communicated and it is the responsibility of the Product Owner to not report duplicates.
Communication and teamwork are critical to making this work.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "208"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f25607%2fcan-a-product-owner-start-testing-while-a-item-is-in-code-review%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
In favor of eliminating waste I'd suggest waiting, too.
Assuming a PO's time is more expensive/valuable than a tester's or dev's, simply because of supply and demand as there is only one PO, but multiple devs/testers, the following would be a waste of good PO time:
- Reporting errors that would have been found by a developer anyway
- Reporting errors that would have been found by testers anyway
- Testing the same things again after scheduled changes (Code Review) have been made
In addition, developers might be a little miffed if their work is criticized before they declared it "done". You don't tell a cook their dish is not tasty dragging it out of the oven when the cook insists it's only half-cooked and needs anther 20 minutes. You don't tell people they park like idiot's when they are still in the street moving. In other words, don't tell people they made mistakes when they are not finished yet. It can only be a "bug" if it should work in the first place.
So filing bug tickets will generate wrong metrics afterwards. Many bug tickets means the developers need to work better. But in this case, they weren't even done yet. So your metrics are skewed.
But as always in Scrum: discuss it with the team, see what everybody has to say and find a solution that works for everybody.
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In favor of eliminating waste I'd suggest waiting, too.
Assuming a PO's time is more expensive/valuable than a tester's or dev's, simply because of supply and demand as there is only one PO, but multiple devs/testers, the following would be a waste of good PO time:
- Reporting errors that would have been found by a developer anyway
- Reporting errors that would have been found by testers anyway
- Testing the same things again after scheduled changes (Code Review) have been made
In addition, developers might be a little miffed if their work is criticized before they declared it "done". You don't tell a cook their dish is not tasty dragging it out of the oven when the cook insists it's only half-cooked and needs anther 20 minutes. You don't tell people they park like idiot's when they are still in the street moving. In other words, don't tell people they made mistakes when they are not finished yet. It can only be a "bug" if it should work in the first place.
So filing bug tickets will generate wrong metrics afterwards. Many bug tickets means the developers need to work better. But in this case, they weren't even done yet. So your metrics are skewed.
But as always in Scrum: discuss it with the team, see what everybody has to say and find a solution that works for everybody.
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
add a comment |
In favor of eliminating waste I'd suggest waiting, too.
Assuming a PO's time is more expensive/valuable than a tester's or dev's, simply because of supply and demand as there is only one PO, but multiple devs/testers, the following would be a waste of good PO time:
- Reporting errors that would have been found by a developer anyway
- Reporting errors that would have been found by testers anyway
- Testing the same things again after scheduled changes (Code Review) have been made
In addition, developers might be a little miffed if their work is criticized before they declared it "done". You don't tell a cook their dish is not tasty dragging it out of the oven when the cook insists it's only half-cooked and needs anther 20 minutes. You don't tell people they park like idiot's when they are still in the street moving. In other words, don't tell people they made mistakes when they are not finished yet. It can only be a "bug" if it should work in the first place.
So filing bug tickets will generate wrong metrics afterwards. Many bug tickets means the developers need to work better. But in this case, they weren't even done yet. So your metrics are skewed.
But as always in Scrum: discuss it with the team, see what everybody has to say and find a solution that works for everybody.
In favor of eliminating waste I'd suggest waiting, too.
Assuming a PO's time is more expensive/valuable than a tester's or dev's, simply because of supply and demand as there is only one PO, but multiple devs/testers, the following would be a waste of good PO time:
- Reporting errors that would have been found by a developer anyway
- Reporting errors that would have been found by testers anyway
- Testing the same things again after scheduled changes (Code Review) have been made
In addition, developers might be a little miffed if their work is criticized before they declared it "done". You don't tell a cook their dish is not tasty dragging it out of the oven when the cook insists it's only half-cooked and needs anther 20 minutes. You don't tell people they park like idiot's when they are still in the street moving. In other words, don't tell people they made mistakes when they are not finished yet. It can only be a "bug" if it should work in the first place.
So filing bug tickets will generate wrong metrics afterwards. Many bug tickets means the developers need to work better. But in this case, they weren't even done yet. So your metrics are skewed.
But as always in Scrum: discuss it with the team, see what everybody has to say and find a solution that works for everybody.
answered 8 hours ago
nvoigtnvoigt
3,204815
3,204815
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
add a comment |
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
Outstanding answer and absolutely correct. In Dev Ops, this concept is generally known as Shift Left. The idea generally speaking is that anything found in development is cheaper than finding it in SIT, is cheaper then finding it in QA, so on and so forth. Right now the OP has their PO performing user acceptance testing during the development phase. That cannot be ideal and likely causing a non-insignificant amount of waste.
– DanK
4 hours ago
add a comment |
The answer depends on whether this slows down or speeds up the process.
How many of the bugs she found were discovered during the Code Review phase?
If they were all discovered during the Code Review then maybe she's wasting her (and everybody's time). Though we can still ask:
How many of the bugs she found were fixed before the Code Review stage?
If they all were, then she is saving you time by having you review corrected code with fewer bugs.
And then there's the Type Of Bugs she finds that makes a difference.
A Product Owner would typically check the product for UI issues, wording, typos and aesthetics.
These "bugs" will not be picked up by Code Reviews or the QA department, as they are mainly subjective. (With the exception of typos.) So the sooner she fixes these issues the less work (of retesting) for all involved.
If, on the other hand, she's only finding hard to find bugs that a good Code Review would have picked up in much less time, then maybe it's worth pointing out to her that she's wasting her time.
One last thought: If she's simply taking the product for a quick test-drive and (since she found them) reporting all the trouble she finds, then maybe your coders need better work ethics; if they tested it for a minute before releasing it they would also find and fix these obvious bugs.
add a comment |
The answer depends on whether this slows down or speeds up the process.
How many of the bugs she found were discovered during the Code Review phase?
If they were all discovered during the Code Review then maybe she's wasting her (and everybody's time). Though we can still ask:
How many of the bugs she found were fixed before the Code Review stage?
If they all were, then she is saving you time by having you review corrected code with fewer bugs.
And then there's the Type Of Bugs she finds that makes a difference.
A Product Owner would typically check the product for UI issues, wording, typos and aesthetics.
These "bugs" will not be picked up by Code Reviews or the QA department, as they are mainly subjective. (With the exception of typos.) So the sooner she fixes these issues the less work (of retesting) for all involved.
If, on the other hand, she's only finding hard to find bugs that a good Code Review would have picked up in much less time, then maybe it's worth pointing out to her that she's wasting her time.
One last thought: If she's simply taking the product for a quick test-drive and (since she found them) reporting all the trouble she finds, then maybe your coders need better work ethics; if they tested it for a minute before releasing it they would also find and fix these obvious bugs.
add a comment |
The answer depends on whether this slows down or speeds up the process.
How many of the bugs she found were discovered during the Code Review phase?
If they were all discovered during the Code Review then maybe she's wasting her (and everybody's time). Though we can still ask:
How many of the bugs she found were fixed before the Code Review stage?
If they all were, then she is saving you time by having you review corrected code with fewer bugs.
And then there's the Type Of Bugs she finds that makes a difference.
A Product Owner would typically check the product for UI issues, wording, typos and aesthetics.
These "bugs" will not be picked up by Code Reviews or the QA department, as they are mainly subjective. (With the exception of typos.) So the sooner she fixes these issues the less work (of retesting) for all involved.
If, on the other hand, she's only finding hard to find bugs that a good Code Review would have picked up in much less time, then maybe it's worth pointing out to her that she's wasting her time.
One last thought: If she's simply taking the product for a quick test-drive and (since she found them) reporting all the trouble she finds, then maybe your coders need better work ethics; if they tested it for a minute before releasing it they would also find and fix these obvious bugs.
The answer depends on whether this slows down or speeds up the process.
How many of the bugs she found were discovered during the Code Review phase?
If they were all discovered during the Code Review then maybe she's wasting her (and everybody's time). Though we can still ask:
How many of the bugs she found were fixed before the Code Review stage?
If they all were, then she is saving you time by having you review corrected code with fewer bugs.
And then there's the Type Of Bugs she finds that makes a difference.
A Product Owner would typically check the product for UI issues, wording, typos and aesthetics.
These "bugs" will not be picked up by Code Reviews or the QA department, as they are mainly subjective. (With the exception of typos.) So the sooner she fixes these issues the less work (of retesting) for all involved.
If, on the other hand, she's only finding hard to find bugs that a good Code Review would have picked up in much less time, then maybe it's worth pointing out to her that she's wasting her time.
One last thought: If she's simply taking the product for a quick test-drive and (since she found them) reporting all the trouble she finds, then maybe your coders need better work ethics; if they tested it for a minute before releasing it they would also find and fix these obvious bugs.
answered 8 hours ago
Danny SchoemannDanny Schoemann
1,56911535
1,56911535
add a comment |
add a comment |
I don't see how this is a problem in the first place.
If the problem is that the PO is not available to give feedback or answer questions then this is an entirely different problem. If the PO is testing things and finding bugs then they're saving your team time and effort.
So if they're still available to do all the things you need them to do let them do whatever testing they want and be grateful for their input.
add a comment |
I don't see how this is a problem in the first place.
If the problem is that the PO is not available to give feedback or answer questions then this is an entirely different problem. If the PO is testing things and finding bugs then they're saving your team time and effort.
So if they're still available to do all the things you need them to do let them do whatever testing they want and be grateful for their input.
add a comment |
I don't see how this is a problem in the first place.
If the problem is that the PO is not available to give feedback or answer questions then this is an entirely different problem. If the PO is testing things and finding bugs then they're saving your team time and effort.
So if they're still available to do all the things you need them to do let them do whatever testing they want and be grateful for their input.
I don't see how this is a problem in the first place.
If the problem is that the PO is not available to give feedback or answer questions then this is an entirely different problem. If the PO is testing things and finding bugs then they're saving your team time and effort.
So if they're still available to do all the things you need them to do let them do whatever testing they want and be grateful for their input.
answered 3 hours ago
xyiousxyious
2313
2313
add a comment |
add a comment |
As a general rule I would say that the earlier the Product Owner starts testing the better.
The reason for this is that a lot of bugs happen as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. The Product Owner is uniquely well placed to review and give feedback to a team.
Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck
If the Product Owner discovers an issue in the testing phase, re-work may be required and a repeat of the code review. This could be considered waste if it was possible for the Product Owner to discover the issue earlier in the development cycle.
Some Scrum teams I have worked with got to the point of demonstrating features to the Product Owner during development, let alone waiting for the testing cycle to begin.
If the team currently finds it disruptive to receive early feedback from the Product Owner then I would suggest looking at ways to improve the development process to make this less of a problem.
My recommendation would be to build your development process around a flexible and early feedback cycle. One approach I have seen taken is to have an environment specifically for the Product Owner. When the development team feels they have a stable build they release it to the Product Owner's environment and let her know that there are new features to review. If there are known issues then they should be clearly communicated and it is the responsibility of the Product Owner to not report duplicates.
Communication and teamwork are critical to making this work.
add a comment |
As a general rule I would say that the earlier the Product Owner starts testing the better.
The reason for this is that a lot of bugs happen as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. The Product Owner is uniquely well placed to review and give feedback to a team.
Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck
If the Product Owner discovers an issue in the testing phase, re-work may be required and a repeat of the code review. This could be considered waste if it was possible for the Product Owner to discover the issue earlier in the development cycle.
Some Scrum teams I have worked with got to the point of demonstrating features to the Product Owner during development, let alone waiting for the testing cycle to begin.
If the team currently finds it disruptive to receive early feedback from the Product Owner then I would suggest looking at ways to improve the development process to make this less of a problem.
My recommendation would be to build your development process around a flexible and early feedback cycle. One approach I have seen taken is to have an environment specifically for the Product Owner. When the development team feels they have a stable build they release it to the Product Owner's environment and let her know that there are new features to review. If there are known issues then they should be clearly communicated and it is the responsibility of the Product Owner to not report duplicates.
Communication and teamwork are critical to making this work.
add a comment |
As a general rule I would say that the earlier the Product Owner starts testing the better.
The reason for this is that a lot of bugs happen as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. The Product Owner is uniquely well placed to review and give feedback to a team.
Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck
If the Product Owner discovers an issue in the testing phase, re-work may be required and a repeat of the code review. This could be considered waste if it was possible for the Product Owner to discover the issue earlier in the development cycle.
Some Scrum teams I have worked with got to the point of demonstrating features to the Product Owner during development, let alone waiting for the testing cycle to begin.
If the team currently finds it disruptive to receive early feedback from the Product Owner then I would suggest looking at ways to improve the development process to make this less of a problem.
My recommendation would be to build your development process around a flexible and early feedback cycle. One approach I have seen taken is to have an environment specifically for the Product Owner. When the development team feels they have a stable build they release it to the Product Owner's environment and let her know that there are new features to review. If there are known issues then they should be clearly communicated and it is the responsibility of the Product Owner to not report duplicates.
Communication and teamwork are critical to making this work.
As a general rule I would say that the earlier the Product Owner starts testing the better.
The reason for this is that a lot of bugs happen as a result of misunderstanding of requirements. The Product Owner is uniquely well placed to review and give feedback to a team.
Ask PO to wait until the item is in the testing phase and keep to sprint timebox and don't become a bottle neck
If the Product Owner discovers an issue in the testing phase, re-work may be required and a repeat of the code review. This could be considered waste if it was possible for the Product Owner to discover the issue earlier in the development cycle.
Some Scrum teams I have worked with got to the point of demonstrating features to the Product Owner during development, let alone waiting for the testing cycle to begin.
If the team currently finds it disruptive to receive early feedback from the Product Owner then I would suggest looking at ways to improve the development process to make this less of a problem.
My recommendation would be to build your development process around a flexible and early feedback cycle. One approach I have seen taken is to have an environment specifically for the Product Owner. When the development team feels they have a stable build they release it to the Product Owner's environment and let her know that there are new features to review. If there are known issues then they should be clearly communicated and it is the responsibility of the Product Owner to not report duplicates.
Communication and teamwork are critical to making this work.
answered 2 hours ago
Barnaby GoldenBarnaby Golden
8,5001723
8,5001723
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Project Management Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpm.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f25607%2fcan-a-product-owner-start-testing-while-a-item-is-in-code-review%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
What happens with the results of the PO's tests?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt She let the developers know that there is a bug that needs fixing.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
Does she test again after the developers are done?
– nvoigt
10 hours ago
@nvoigt yes she does.
– inzefinite
10 hours ago
1
Why is it that she can test in the first place? Can she deploy from test sources herself?
– nvoigt
8 hours ago