# 1a
1. ABC consulting didn't scale apart from its ability to bill resources at higher rate. Transitioning from EOL projects to high margin products was the chosen route to increase the companies profits while maintaining speed.
2. The first move would be to figure out why, after dedicating resources, that ABC has not been able to take over execution of product line roadmaps from their clients.
3. It would be important to understand this from XYZ, them being ABCs key client and a software product company. Since XYZ and ABC have worked on different models so far, it is bound to be their feedback that ABC doesn't seem to built for product engineering, as it is not agile enough to adapt to constant change and uncertainty, whereas ABCs reliance on massive documentation and bureuacratic systems would prove to be a handicap.
4. The next logical step is to train the employees in agile methodologies that involve fast decision making and team building, essentially bringing a shift in in company culture incorporating fast product development techniques.
5. From the findings its come to notice that usually during a spring there is nothing available for the scrum team to test until the 3rd week. This brings about very less scope for development. Product development and testing need to be done in parallel to reduce technical debt and increased growth for a shorter duration
6. Project backlogs/goals have to be set according to the velocity and ability of the scrum team to handle that goal.Company ABC promotes this environment where in teams with lower average velocities are encouraged to take up ambitious goals. This is not beneficial to the company as there is no guarantee of a deliverable.
7. The sprint plannning must complusorily specify a detailed list of tasks that have to be completed during the sprints. Having a draft list during planning and finalizing it during the first week which ABC follows has a toll on the time of the sprint and possibly a compromise on the resources spent depending on the differences of this last between and its draft and the final list.
8. During an emergency situation its very essential for the product owner and the development team to halt the current scrum update backlogs and goals and commence a new sprint.This is a good practice.ABC puts pressure on each of its team members during an emergency which has the possibility of reducing the efficieny at which the team operates.
9. There must be regular communication between customers/stakeholders/users to ensure that the product is being developed in accordance to what the market demands.ABC has never communicated with a customer through the course of developing products and has done it solely based on assumptions of market needs.

# 1b
1. Hierarchical and bureaucratic structure of ABC would severely hinder the fast paced agile environment that XYZ seek for products in their growth phase. Extensive documentation, and bureaucratic overhead hinder the growth of fast-growing products as is the case with XYZ's product roadmap.
2. ABC relies on huge volumes of documentation of every step that does not facilitate fast development of products, a process that can keep up with constant changes.
3. New roles were created by ABC but the organizational overhead was the same. A bureaucratic organization was just not fast(agile) enough to keep up with the constant changes and uncertainty that is product dev
4. Fast communication was needed between the development teams and management which was not facilitated by the very office layout and the basic interaction fundamentals, as showcased by the open layout in XYZ and closed cubicle style layout in ABC
5. XYZ on the other hand works in open plan offices with a less hierarchical structure. They report to upper management less frequently and while executing scrum, the fat is cut out in terms of meeting duration, day-on-day execution, straightforward communication.
6. Culturally, ABCs value mostly came from maintenance of existing projects. We see that Stan was given 2 projects to overview on his arrival and both of them were EOL maintenance (patch releases) or near-EOL projects, whose mode of operations are polar opposites of what agile scrum require, which would not satisy XYZ.
7. Based on the surveys conducted by Stan as well, we see even in an attempt to adapt to agile scrum, ABC were not able to adapt quick enough as their testing bagan in the 3rd week of scrum, no customer inputs were taken, planning took nearly a week, stand-up meetings lasted longer than an hour and emergency patch releases had to be taken care of in the same scrum if they occured. Culturally, their ability to adapt to scrum was very slow and inefficient.
8.

# 2
1. ABC made an attempt to adapt to the Scrum methodology quickly. Daily stand-up meetings took place anywhere between 60-90 minutes every day. This negatively impacts the company as they’re wasting more time on daily meetings. Scrum meetings shouldn’t take any more than 15 minutes, these meetings should be brisk but relevant. The scrum masters are rotated across sprints which could be effective but don’t work for teams that are struggling with scrum/are new to scrum.
2. Quality engineers joined in during the 2nd week of Scrum. Testing should take place parallel to development as this allows us to find bugs and improve test cases. In the case of ABC, the testing engineers didn’t write the test cases till the 3rd week. This was a usual pattern that took place in all centers showcasing the clear lack of management which contributes negatively towards the main goal.
3. ABC showed a willingness by adapting to the more agile methodology by training their product managers as scrum masters who now take care of assigning tasks among team members and keep track of assigned tasks. They also make commitments on behalf of the team and motivate the team members on the commitment made. This showed a positive contribution based on the decision taken by ABC.
4. Scrum clearly specifies the scope of a Sprint and it can’t be changed once the Sprint begins. If an important emergency change is required then the sprint should be terminated or the change must be incorporated into a later sprint. In the case of ABC, the product backlog changed during the 3rd week which negatively affects the sprint and adds stress to the development team. Also given that such a mechanism creates a greater dependency on every individual contributing to the sprint rather than the team as a whole bringing in greater pressure on the individual to meet a given deliverable. This shows a negative contribution based on the decision taken by ABC
5. ABC did a good job at holding scrum meetings routinely, they had detailed presentations about the concluded sprint and feedback session involving all the members. This is a positive contribution as this allows us to inspect the outcome and determine future adaptations.
6. The objective of sprint planning is to define objectives that qualify as the bare minimum for a plan for the coming sprint. This needs to be a discussion between the product owner, who defines where the product needs to move forward, and the development team, which defines and states what is achievable in a sprint iteration that will give the maximum value for the effort. Involving higher levels of management and taking an atrociously long amount of time, as much as one week in a four-week sprint, goes against the basic idea of agility and scrum. Thus, this key finding contributes to a NO GO.
7. Having the team take up an ambitious goal versus the low average velocity of the scrum team is a terrible agile scrum practice. This is because merely encouraging the scrum team to take up an ambitious task does not guarantee the deliverable and in terms of metrics, it’s clearly impossible for the team to meet this deliverable. This practice, therefore, contributes negatively to the practices of ABC.
8. A product owner is responsible for defining the backlog and streamlining the execution of program priorities. A product owner should have knowledge of the customer’s needs. In ABC the product owner never had interaction with customers which means every deliverable at the end of a sprint doesn’t consult the consumers which negatively impacts the process. The customers provide valuable feedback to the developers about the product they’re developing. This helps the team understand the problem they’re solving and the difference they’re making and accordingly develop the product versus the customer feedback.