Concepts
While the Product Owner (PO) is synonymous with being the value maximizer in Scrum, there are instances where they should not act as the facilitator for stakeholders. Being an Advanced Certified Scrum Product Owner (A-CSPO), it is essential to discern those situations correctly for effective stakeholder management and ensure the smooth execution of the project. Let’s explore two such scenarios where the PO should avoid facilitating stakeholders and their possible consequences.
Conflict of Interest
The first scenario arises when there is a conflict of interest. A Product Owner should step back from facilitating stakeholder meetings if the PO’s personal or business interests clash with those of stakeholders or their project. A canonical example would be if the PO also played a role in a vendor company involved in the project.
In such a case, the PO, serving dual roles, could cause bias in decision-making or influence negotiations advantageously to the vendor company, thereby impacting the project’s integrity. A conflict of interest can skew the PO’s judgement, erode stakeholder trust, and stagnate collaborative resolution of problems.
| Potential Issue | Possible Consequence |
|---|---|
| The PO’s personal or business interests overlaps with stakeholders’ | Biased decision-making |
| Stakeholder trust is compromised | Collaboration and communication is hampered |
The Product Owner Lacks Domain Knowledge
The second scenario emerges when the Product Owner lacks domain expertise relevant to the stakeholder’s concern. Facilitating stakeholders requires the PO to communicate with authority and confidence about the product’s intricacies, prioritizing the backlog, understanding user requirements, and mapping them to features.
Suppose the PO isn’t well-versed in a specific technical aspect of the product or lacks understanding on a stakeholder’s concern. In that case, it is advisable for the PO to not facilitate the stakeholder interaction. Delegating the facilitation task to someone with the relevant knowledge would be more beneficial in this situation.
For instance, if the stakeholders are from a legal background and their concerns pertain to legal agreements and product compliance, a PO with scarce legal understanding would find it challenging to facilitate effective communication. The inadequacy can lead to miscommunications, incorrect requirement understanding, and eventually, product misalignment against original requirements.
| Potential Issue | Possible Consequence |
|---|---|
| PO lacks domain expertise relevant to stakeholder’s concerns | Miscommunications or Incorrect requirement understanding |
| Product misalignment against stakeholders’ requirements | Incomplete or inappropriate product output |
In conclusion, although the PO is the main channel for managing stakeholders in Scrum, recognizing when to step back is as crucial as bridging the communication gap between the development team and stakeholders. An A-CSPO should consider these scenarios diligently before stepping into the facilitator’s role, ensuring the project’s successful and fair execution.
Answer the Questions in Comment Section
True or False: A Product Owner should always act as the facilitator for the stakeholders.
Answer: False
Explanation: While the Product Owner often plays a facilitation role, there are instances when they should not assume this role. For example, when there are conflicts of interest or they lack required skills.
In which of the following situations should the Product Owner NOT act as a facilitator for the stakeholders?
- a) When stakeholders have conflicting views
- b) When the Product Owner lacks adequate facilitation skills
- c) When there is a high-priority backlog
- d) When the team is self-organizing
Answer: a, b, d
Explanation: The Product Owner won’t be suitable to facilitate when stakeholders have conflicting views that might bias the PO’s decision making, when the PO lacks adequate facilitation skills, or when the team is self-organizing and the role of facilitator is shared among team members.
True or False: A Product Owner should always facilitate when conflict arises among stakeholders.
Answer: False
Explanation: It’s not advisable for a Product Owner to facilitate in case of a conflict between stakeholders. There is a risk that the outcome might be biased toward what the PO finds desirable.
A Product Owner should not act as a facilitator for the stakeholders when:
- a) He lacks the necessary skills to facilitate a session effectively
- b) He has a pre-defined agenda
- c) He struggles to remain neutral
- d) All of the above
Answer: d) All of the above
Explanation: It’s important for a facilitator to remain neutral, to possess necessary facilitation skills, and not to come with a personal, pre-defined agenda.
True or False: It’s always the responsibility of the Product Owner to facilitate stakeholder meetings.
Answer: False
Explanation: Although facilitating stakeholder meetings is often a part of the Product Owner’s role, there are situations when this role should be delegated to others.
Which of the following is a possible consequence of a Product Owner acting as a facilitator despite a conflict of interest?
- a) Biased decision-making
- b) Lack of effective facilitation
- c) Issues with stakeholder engagement
- d) All of the above
Answer: d) All of the above
Explanation: If a Product Owner facilitates despite a conflict of interest, it could lead to biased decisions, ineffective facilitation and problems with stakeholder engagement.
When the Product Owner is part of the conflict among stakeholders, they should:
- a) Act as a facilitator
- b) Step away from the facilitator role
- c) Intensify the conflict
- d) Resolve the conflict single-handedly
Answer: b) Step away from the facilitator role
Explanation: It’s crucial for a facilitator to remain neutral in a conflict situation. If the Product Owner is part of the conflict, they cannot fulfil this requirement.
True or False: The Product Owner should facilitate stakeholder meetings even if they lack the necessary skills.
Answer: False
Explanation: Effective facilitation requires specific skills. If a Product Owner lacks these skills, their facilitation may be ineffective and undermine the meeting’s outcomes.
A Product Owner should step down as a facilitator when:
- a) They cannot maintain neutrality
- b) They lack the necessary facilitation skills
- c) They have a pre-defined agenda
- d) All of the above
Answer: d) All of the above
Explanation: A facilitator needs to be neutral, skilled, and open to all perspectives. If the Product Owner fails in any of these, they should step down from this role.
True or False: A Product Owner should always act as the facilitator, irrespective of their facilitation skills or the context of the situation.
Answer: False
Explanation: A Product Owner should only facilitate stakeholder meetings if they possess the necessary skills, can maintain neutrality, and do not have a pre-determined agenda.
True or False: In a self-organizing Scrum team, the Product Owner should handle all facilitation responsibilities.
Answer: False
Explanation: In a self-organizing Scrum team, facilitation responsibilities are typically shared among the team members, and not solely on the Product Owner.
True or False: When a Product Owner has a personal stake in the outcome of a discussion or decision, they should not act as the facilitator for that discussion.
Answer: True
Explanation: If a Product Owner has a personal stake in the outcome, they could potentially bias the discussion or decision process. It would be more appropriate for another individual, who can remain neutral, to facilitate the conversation.
I think the Product Owner should not facilitate when there is a conflict of interest, particularly if they have a strong opinion on the matter.
Agreed. Facilitating a discussion where you have a vested interest can jeopardize neutrality and objectivity.
Indeed, it would be hard to remain unbiased in such situations.
Thanks for sharing this blog. It’s very useful!
An example would be during high-stakes meetings where major product decisions are made. The Product Owner may be too close to the product to facilitate effectively.
That’s a solid point. Having an unbiased facilitator can help in reaching more balanced decisions.
Absolutely, it keeps the focus on making the best decision rather than pleasing any single party.
This post clarified a lot of my doubts. Appreciate the detailed explanation!
Another instance is during retrospective meetings. The PO should be an active participant rather than a facilitator to provide genuine insights.
Good example! Retros can uncover a lot of team dynamics that a PO needs to be part of, not just oversee.
I think a Scrum Master would be a better fit for facilitating retrospectives.
Appreciate this blog post. Very enlightening.
Great points raised here. I think the objectivity of the process can be maintained well by an external facilitator.
Yes, an external facilitator can help in many ways by providing an outsider perspective.
While I see the merits, isn’t it sometimes essential for the PO to facilitate to ensure their vision is understood?
Not necessarily. Facilitating and explaining their vision are two different roles. A PO can still participate actively without having to facilitate.
Exactly! Explaining their vision can be done effectively during the backlog grooming or sprint planning sessions.