1 minute read
Reducing quality is not the accountability of anyone on the Scrum Team acting alone.
The software you build has economic consequences for the organisation. Depending on how it is accounted for, its development may affect capitalisation, operating expenditure, impairment, useful life, maintenance costs, liabilities, and ultimately the organisation’s financial position.
If I am being asked to knowingly ship below an agreed quality standard, then whoever has the organisational accountability and authority to accept those consequences needs to make that decision explicitly.
I would want that acceptance recorded and attributable to the people empowered to take the financial, legal, operational, and customer risk on behalf of the organisation.
“Just ship it” from someone who does not hold that accountability is not sufficient authority to transfer the risk to the Scrum Team.
You can ask me to explain the consequences. You can ask me to identify the defects. You can ask me to provide the evidence needed to make the decision.
But you cannot delegate organisational accountability simply by telling the people building the software to ship it.
Subscribe to Martin's signals
Writing since 2006
Signals, usually weekly. One click to leave.
Enjoyed this? One click, no account.
Smart Classifications
Each classification [Concepts, Categories, & Tags] was assigned using AI-powered semantic analysis and scored across relevance, depth, and alignment. Final decisions? Still human. Always traceable. Hover to see how it applies.