The most Agile approach is to facilitate a team discussion (like a focused retrospective) to inspect and adapt their process collaboratively. This empowers the team, builds shared ownership of the solution, and aligns with Agile principles of self-organization and continuous improvement. Simply enforcing rules or providing passive materials is less engaging and sustainable, while complete non-intervention ignores the coach’s role in helping the team improve.

The sprint review is a feedback loop. The Product Owner’s primary role is to collaborate with stakeholders and manage the Product Backlog based on value. The correct action is to engage transparently, understand the real need (which may have been misunderstood or evolved), and use that feedback to adapt the backlog. Defending the work closes the feedback loop, while replanning immediately or moving the conversation offline misses the opportunity for shared learning and transparency.

The core rationale is based on cognitive psychology: humans are better at comparing things (e.g., this backpack is heavier than that one) than making absolute predictions (e.g., this backpack weighs 14.7 lbs). Story points measure relative size/complexity, which is more stable. Duration depends on many variables (interruptions, learning, teamwork) and is separate from size. While relative estimation can be faster, its primary strength is in improving the accuracy of sizing, not necessarily duration forecasting.

Agile teams are self-organizing and should collaboratively manage their work. The daily stand-up is a planning event for the next 24 hours, making it an appropriate forum to raise and quickly assess this issue. The team can weigh the value of the improvement against the sprint goal and their commitment. Autonomously implementing it or deferring it without discussion are less collaborative. The Scrum Master should facilitate the discussion, not make the technical decision.

Velocity is a historical metric and a guide, not a commitment or a target to be mechanically applied. The team should use it as one input, but the fundamental activity of sprint planning is for the team to forecast what they can complete based on their analysis of the backlog items and their current capacity (considering holidays, team members’ availability, etc.). The goal is a realistic forecast, not hitting a specific number. Option C captures this nuanced, practical approach.

A spike is a specific type of exploration Enabler story in frameworks like SAFe, or a common practice in Scrum/XP. Its sole purpose is to gain knowledge, answer a question, or reduce risk (technical or requirements-based) to make subsequent estimation and planning more reliable. It is timeboxed to limit investment in research and is not for bug fixing, individual work, or retrospective activities.

The “Three Amigos” practice (typically involving roles like Product Owner, Developer, and Tester) brings diverse perspectives together early to build a shared understanding. This collaborative conversation is more engaging and effective at uncovering assumptions and acceptance criteria than one-person presentations or rushed timeboxes. It addresses the root cause of disengagement (lack of collaboration) and stuck details (missing perspectives). Waiting until just before planning creates a bottleneck and reduces flexibility.

This is a direct reflection of the Agile Manifesto principle: “Working software is the primary measure of progress.” While velocity is a useful internal metric for forecasting, and managing time/budget is important, the ultimate indicator of value and progress for the customer and the project is the delivery of tangible, working product increments. Phases and milestones are more aligned with predictive, plan-driven measures.

The best approach is to bring the systemic issue to the whole team in a constructive, blameless way (the retrospective). Focusing on establishing a team norm around collective ownership and swarming encourages a collaborative culture and addresses the bottleneck. Publicly praising productivity while introducing the new norm is a positive, forward-looking tactic. Privately chastising the individual is confrontational and misses the opportunity for team learning. Ignoring the issue allows a sub-optimal process to continue.

The most Agile approach is to facilitate a team discussion (like a focused retrospective) to inspect and adapt their process collaboratively. This empowers the team, builds shared ownership of the solution, and aligns with Agile principles of self-organization and continuous improvement. Simply enforcing rules or providing passive materials is less engaging and sustainable, while complete non-intervention ignores the coach’s role in helping the team improve.0