Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →I would add one sentence to the Sprint Review guidance: when practical and relevant, the Scrum Team should seek direct perspectives from customers or users on the Increment and what they need next. That would make the feedback loop more explicit without turning user attendance into a mandatory Scrum rule.
What would I change?
I would clarify that the Sprint Review can benefit from direct customer or user perspectives—not just discussion among the Scrum Team and its stakeholders. The proposed wording could be: “When practical and relevant, seek direct feedback from customers or users to inform discussion of the Increment and possible adaptations.”
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
This is a proposal, not a rule in the current Guide or a claim of community consensus. It adds a prompt to seek useful evidence; it does not require customers or users to attend every review.
Why put the clarification in the Sprint Review?
The official English Scrum Guide is the November 2020 edition, authored by Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland; the official version page identifies it as current. (Scrum Guide download page.)
#1 Best Overall
In that edition, the Sprint Review is a working session for the Scrum Team and stakeholders to inspect the Sprint’s outcome, discuss changes in the environment, and collaborate on what to do next. It is not meant to be only a presentation. Explicitly inviting teams to seek customer or user perspectives where they are useful would reinforce the Review’s purpose: examining the outcome and adapting future work. (The 2020 Scrum Guide, Sprint Review.)
The idea also fits Scrum’s foundations. The Guide describes Scrum as based on empiricism and lean thinking, with transparency, inspection, and adaptation as its pillars. Feedback from people who use or buy a product can provide evidence that complements the team’s own inspection. John Coleman, writing for Scrum.org about the 2020 revision, argued for more customer-centricity and outside-in thinking; that is his commentary, not evidence of a shared position across the Scrum community. (John Coleman on the 2020 Scrum Guide.)
Rank #2
Why keep it a small change?
The 2020 Guide defines Scrum as “a lightweight framework that helps people, teams and organizations generate value through adaptive solutions for complex problems.” It also says the Guide is purposefully incomplete: it defines only the parts required to implement Scrum theory, while processes, techniques, and methods may be used within the framework. Schwaber and Sutherland write, “Such tactics for using within the Scrum framework vary widely and are described elsewhere.” (The 2020 Scrum Guide, Purpose.)
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
That design argues for a brief nudge, not a detailed script specifying who must attend, how feedback must be collected, or which research method to use. A good addition should clarify a valuable feedback loop while leaving teams free to decide how it works in their setting.
Rank #3
What the proposal should—and should not—require
- Seek direct perspectives when they help. A customer conversation, user observation, or other direct input may be relevant to the product and the question under review.
- Do not make attendance compulsory. Some products have users who cannot reasonably join a review, or direct participation may be inappropriate. The Guide leaves context-sensitive tactics to other sources.
- Keep the Review collaborative. Customer input should inform discussion of the Increment and possible next steps; it should not replace the Scrum Team’s and stakeholders’ inspection and adaptation.
The Guide’s accountabilities and structure remain intact: the Scrum Team consists of Developers, a Product Owner, and a Scrum Master; it has a Sprint and four other formal events, including the Sprint Review. Its artifacts have commitments—the Product Goal for the Product Backlog, Sprint Goal for the Sprint Backlog, and Definition of Done for the Increment. The proposed sentence would change none of these; it would clarify how teams can strengthen evidence considered during one existing event. (The 2020 Scrum Guide.)
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to judge the change
A proposed edit should pass three tests:
- Does it close a meaningful gap? The Review already includes stakeholders and discussion of the outcome; the suggested wording makes the value of direct customer or user perspectives more visible.
- Does it support empiricism and value feedback? It encourages teams to consider evidence from people affected by the product, rather than assuming internal impressions are sufficient.
- Does it preserve the Guide’s brevity and flexibility? “When practical and relevant” signals that the tactic depends on context instead of imposing a universal attendance rule.
No quantified effect for this proposed change is established in the cited Guide or commentary. Its case is one of clarity and alignment with the Review’s existing purpose, not a promised percentage improvement.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
