A Scrum Team has stopped keeping its Sprint Backlog current, and when a stakeholder asks how the Sprint is going the Developers reply that they are self-managing and will show the result at the Sprint Review. Two Sprints in a row have then missed the Sprint Goal. What is wrong here?

Professional Scrum Master I, objective 2. Developing people and teams medium

Machine-checked — no person has signed for it. This question was read against the source cited below by an automated pass, which found no contradiction. That is a weaker claim than it sounds: the same kind of process wrote the question, so it can confirm its own mistake.

Treat it as a good draft rather than as settled fact, and read the source below before you rely on it. It is not used in mock exams here — only questions a person has signed for are.

The options

Not correct Nothing is wrong — a self-managing team owns its plan and owes nobody a view of it mid-Sprint

Wrong, and it is the misreading this lesson exists to kill. Owning the plan and hiding the plan are different things; the Sprint Backlog is described as a highly visible, real-time picture precisely so that ownership does not become opacity.

Not correct The stakeholder should be given a daily status report by the Scrum Master, so the team keeps its own plan private

Wrong. Adding a reporting channel around the team leaves the artefact untrustworthy and makes the Scrum Master a proxy for information the team should be making visible itself.

Correct Transparency is missing — the work must be visible to those performing it as well as those receiving it

Correct. Low transparency leads to decisions that diminish value and increase risk, and the Developers are among the people being misled — they inspect their own progress in the Daily Scrum using that same artefact.

Not correct The Sprint Backlog should be handed to the Product Owner to maintain, since they answer to stakeholders

Wrong. The Sprint Backlog is a plan by and for the Developers. Moving its upkeep to the Product Owner would take from the Developers the plan they are accountable for adapting each day.

Why

Self-management never buys exemption from transparency, because transparency is what makes self-management safe to grant. The empirical chain runs one way only: transparency enables inspection, inspection enables adaptation. A team that hides its plan has not become independent, it has removed its own ability to inspect — and the Developers are the first ones to be misled by an artefact that no longer matches reality.

Where this comes from

Cited
Scrum Guide section Transparency
What it says
The emergent process and work must be visible to those performing the work as well as those receiving the work.

Practise this

Reading one question is not practice. The trainer will draw a set from objective 2 and space the ones you get wrong.

Practise Professional Scrum Master I

More questions on this objective

All questions on Developing people and teams