Comments and Ideas based on translating SGEP to Polish

[IwoHryniewicz]

Dear Authors,

Some of these comments might seems harsh, but they're such because we (Magda, Michal, Iwo) care. We care about Scrum, the Community and this Document. We're very much open to discussion and have

Overall Impression:
The document is excessively complex, using advanced terminology (e.g., exaptation, "Bayesian surprise", fuzzy sets) without clearly demonstrating their practical value. Quoting experts such as Steven Wolfram creates an impression of a scientific treatise rather than a practical guide to adopting Scrum. Clarify the intended audience—if targeting potential Supporters, simplify the language. The current tone seems geared towards overly intellectual Scrum Masters or Agile Coaches, which may alienate readers despite their expertise. The difficulty of this document voids the change for wider adoption.

Formatting and Consistency:
There are noticeable formatting inconsistencies, including variations in capitalization and italics (e.g., Scrum Values). Significant stylistic inconsistencies and duplication occur (e.g., "Scrum in a nutshell," "Scrum on one page"). Some sentences are unnecessarily complicated.

Issues and Suggestions:

Undefined Terms: The term "Supporters" is introduced before being clearly defined.

Discovery Frames: The phrase "while having fun" could distract non-Anglo-Saxon readers. Recommend removing it to maintain clarity.

AI Section (Continuous Value Adaptation): Suggest reframing AI's role from directly updating and reprioritizing Product Backlog Items to providing input or suggestions for ordering, aligning with Scrum Guide 2020.

Exaptation: The section on exaptation adds complexity without clear value; recommend removal.

OODA Loops: This section is overly detailed and cites a specific author. Recommend simplifying it or replacing it with a more widely recognized concept such as PDCA.

Authors' Names: Professors Takeuchi and Nonaka are referenced by surname only, unlike other authors mentioned. Recommend consistency by either adding first names or removing author names altogether.

Increment and Value Validation: Clarify that the Increment itself isn't value validation. Rather, a completed Increment is a precondition for validating value through its actual use, even if on a small scale.

Released Increment: Suggest revising "A released Increment enables result feedback for Definition of Outcome Done value validation" to something clearer, e.g., "Releasing an Increment enables value validation."

Outcome Criteria: Introducing "Outcome Criteria" adds unnecessary complexity. Outcomes can be adequately defined within Acceptance Criteria (ACC), as has been done traditionally.

Commitment: Product Goal: Change wording to clarify that Supporters are a subgroup of Stakeholders: "A Product Goal is the medium-term objective for the Scrum Team and Stakeholders, including Supporters."

Sprint Backlog: Clarify that Developers create a plan to deliver the Sprint Goal rather than a single Increment, as multiple Increments may be created within a Sprint.

Sprint Definition: Maintain consistency—sometimes the Sprint is described as a "timeboxed event," and other times explicitly as "not a timebox."

Inspection and Adaptation during Sprint: The sentence implying inspection of progress toward the Sprint Goal only once every four weeks undermines empirical process control. Clarify that inspection occurs daily at the Daily Scrum. Suggest focusing this paragraph instead on Product Goal progress inspection during Sprint Reviews (at least).

Sprint Retrospective: Discouraging discussion of the Increment during the Retrospective can prevent it from overshadowing environment-focused improvements. Suggest rephrasing to emphasize discussing the environment in which Increments are produced.

Multi-learning Hyphenation: Remove the hyphen in "multi-learning" to align with the original source.

Industrial Complex Reference: Rephrase unclear wording "brave people have the agency" to a clearer alternative: "Embrace what is valuable in contemporary approaches and abandon the industrial complex (30-35), where only the brave have the courage to act."

Emergent Change Sentence: Clarify incomplete sentence: "Emergent change in the direction of travel is the change [you seek/need]."

Italics Usage: Questioning the reason for the entire paragraph on Stakeholders in the "One Page" section being italicized; recommend reviewing formatting consistency.

[ViralGoodAgile]

Thank you, @IwoHryniewicz, for your thoughtful post and the translation work by you and your Polish translation group colleagues. @rjocham and I are marking your suggestions for consideration in the September update. We agree with a lot of what you say and not with some. Given the level of detail gone into by the Polish translation group, which we really value, we would be ok with you and your Polish translation colleagues reviewing the draft update as it becomes available so you can interact with us for the September update.

The introduction of the review of the Increment (optionally) in the Sprint Retrospective is intentional, as it was inspired by a key product thought leader. We appreciate that it is not normal. Sometimes psychological safety is low, and it's appropriate. However, we agree we should re-emphasize the purpose of the Retrospective.

About OODA, Jeff Sutherland is a big fan of OODA as a former fighter jet pilot, and Ralph and I would like to respect that. I am a fan of an adapted PDSA loop, which will feature in a separate executive guide and book. We did not want to mix PDSA/PDCA with Inspect and Adapt. But OODA did inspire Jeff in how he thinks about Scrum.

In general, the June release was about the what and the why. The September and December releases and beyond will go into the how.

Bayesian surprise is a topic Jeff writes a lot about, and it will stay in. Fuzzy sets - that's a subject that more people need to learn about, as current options for forecasting have issues. More to come on that in the future, we will not delete those. But perhaps we can explain more.

We continue to progress the readability of the document; not all of it qualifies as readable for 16-year-olds yet, a standard we set on ourselves. However, given a choice of over-simplification or nuanced coherence, we select nuanced coherence. This document is not meant to be for everyone. That said, we will strive to simplify where we can.

Thanks again, we are already working on the suggestions from your group.