The Product Owner has been pulled onto a due-diligence exercise and has missed the last three Sprint Plannings. He has told the Developers to "take whatever is at the top of the list". The Product Backlog has not been reordered in six weeks. What is the Scrum Master's most appropriate response?

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

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 Order the Product Backlog herself each week until the Product Owner is available again

Wrong, and this is the trap: it is helpful, it is fast, and it silently transfers a value decision to someone who does not hold it. The Product Owner would remain accountable for an ordering he never made.

Correct Make the absence visible and work with the Product Owner and his management on how the accountability can actually be met, including what he may delegate and to whom

Correct. The Product Owner may delegate the work of backlog management but remains accountable for it, so the Scrum Master's move is to restore a working arrangement — and to make the organisation see the cost of an unavailable Product Owner.

Not correct Ask the Developers to vote on the ordering at the start of each Sprint Planning

Wrong. Ordering the Product Backlog is not a matter for a vote; a team-decided order has no single accountable owner and stops being a defensible view of value.

Not correct Cancel Sprints until the Product Owner returns, since Scrum cannot run without him

Wrong on two counts. Only the Product Owner may cancel a Sprint, and he may do so only when the Sprint Goal becomes obsolete — not as a protest at his own absence.

Why

An absent Product Owner is an impediment, and it is one the Scrum Master causes to be removed rather than papers over. The Guide allows delegation of the work — writing items, refining, even ordering with someone — but never of the accountability, so the answer is always an arrangement that keeps a real Product Owner in the loop. A Scrum Master who quietly becomes the Product Owner has removed the transparency that would have got the problem solved.

Where this comes from

Cited
Scrum Guide section Product Owner
What it says
The Product Owner may do the above work or may delegate the responsibility to others. Regardless, the Product Owner remains accountable.

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