Identifying the Least Useful Documentation for a Scrum Team Enhancing an Existing Product

When working on enhancing an existing product, certain types of documentation can be more valuable than others. Knowing which documentation is least useful helps focus the team’s efforts on what truly adds value to the development process.

Exam Question

You are on a Scrum Team that is enhancing an existing product. Which is the LEAST useful piece of documentation you want to have at your disposal?
(choose the best answer)
A. Acceptance tests.
B. The full history of retrospective plans and lessons learned.
C. Detailed designs.
D. Well-structured and named code.

Correct Answer

B. The full history of retrospective plans and lessons learned.

Explanation

Correct Answer

B. The full history of retrospective plans and lessons learned:
While retrospectives are valuable for continuous improvement, having the full history of all retrospective plans and lessons learned is the least useful when focusing on enhancing an existing product. This historical data might not be directly applicable to the current work and could be overwhelming or irrelevant to the current task at hand.

Why the Other Options Are More Useful

A. Acceptance tests:
Acceptance tests are crucial as they define the criteria that must be met for a feature to be considered complete. They are directly tied to the functionality and quality of the product, making them highly valuable for enhancing an existing product.

C. Detailed designs:
Detailed designs provide insights into how the system is structured and how new features or changes can be integrated. They help ensure that enhancements are made consistently with the existing architecture.

D. Well-structured and named code:
Well-structured and named code is fundamental for maintaining and enhancing a product. It ensures that the codebase is understandable and maintainable, reducing the risk of introducing errors during enhancements.

Relevance to the PSD Exam

Understanding which documentation is most and least useful in various contexts is important for the PSD exam. It helps prioritize the documentation that adds the most value to the team’s work and the product’s quality.

Key Takeaways

• Retrospective history is less useful when enhancing an existing product compared to documentation directly related to the code and its functionality.
• Acceptance tests, detailed designs, and well-structured code are essential for maintaining and improving the quality of an existing product.

Conclusion

When enhancing an existing product, focus on documentation that directly impacts the quality and maintainability of the code. Retrospective history, while useful for continuous improvement, is less critical in this context. For more information on preparing for the PSD exam, visit our Professional Scrum Developer PSD™ Exam Prep.