We have all manually split user stories.

A few years ago, I introduced WAHZUR and T-Split techniques to split large user stories into smaller ones. If you don’t know what they are, watch the video below, where I talk about these two techniques.

Now imagine doing all of that in a fraction of the time, right inside Jira, using Atlassian’s own ROVO AI.

What is ROVO?

ROVO is Atlassian's built-in AI assistant. You access it via the chat icon in the top-right corner of Jira. You can also access it by typing /rovo in any issue description or comment field.

This post walks you through the simplest way to split user stories with ROVO AI utilizing WAHZUR and T-Split techniques.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

It is one of those Product activities that everyone knows matters, yet it's routinely underdeveloped or written too late.

Your team has probably already used AI to write acceptance criteria.

You typed in a user story, got a list of conditions back, and pasted it straight into Jira. Fast. Easy. Done.

Here’s the thing, though. This speed comes at a cost.

I have seen that this acceptance criteria is usually vague, with missing edge cases and conditions that can’t actually be verified.

AI can write AC. That part is easy. Writing AC your team can trust is a different story.

Used without a clear process, AI gives you false confidence. The gaps are still there, they're just harder to spot.

In today’s post, I am going to give you a simple 3-phased process my teams use to write acceptance criteria every sprint.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Last Thursday, we learned how the POs use AI to turn vague signals into refinement-ready backlog items.

When this is done right, your PO can start the refinement sessions with:

1. a categorized signal,

2. a one-paragraph problem statement, and

3. a selected user story

But what if it is NOT done right?

Then what?

If you are a Scrum Master, how would you help the PO with this process and ensure it happens consistently?

Before we get into the mechanics of this, let me clarify something:

Your job as a Scrum Master IS NOT to run the AI prompts. Your job is to ensure the prompts are run by the PO and the team on a regular basis.

And to do that, you need to know:

• exactly which prompts exist,

• what each prompt produces, and most importantly

• when to push the PO to use the ones they’re skipping

That’s what this post gives you.

There are 13 prompts in this AI discovery toolkit, organized across various groups.

For each prompt, I’ve added a single pre-refinement question that you can use as a trigger to nudge your PO in the right direction. You don’t need to become a prompt engineer. All you need is to know the right question to ask.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Every refinement session has a tax.

The first 20-30 minutes where the team figures out what they’re actually building, why it matters, and whether it’s even the right thing.

That tax is paid because, usually, the PO walks into the Refinement sessions with a vague signal and not a prepared backlog item.

On Thursday, I showed you how some of the POs I work with have started using AI to turn such vague complaints/signals into refinement-ready backlog items in three steps, before the team ever gathers for the Refinement session.

Today, you get the template and facilitation guide to actually run it.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Here’s a typical refinement session:

Someone complains: "Users are saying they can't find anything in the app. Sales is losing deals over it."

The team comes together, one team member reads the complaint (or a vague requirement, or an idea, etc.) aloud, and for the next 40 minutes, the team tries to figure out:

• WHAT the problem actually is,

• WHOSE problem is it, and

• whether this is even the RIGHT THING to build

The effort is usually parked or rushed because “the thing” is not yet ready for refinement, and other items are lined up in the queue.

This happens because that complaint or requirement is a vague signal, and the work of turning it into a clear backlog item usually falls onto the PO.

Most POs do this in their heads between meetings, which results in a vague complaint becoming a vague user story.

This is now being changed thanks to AI.

Some POs I work with are using AI to quickly and easily turn these kinds of vague ideas into refinement-ready Backlog Items.

Here’s how they are doing it.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Welcome to the Sunday edition of the Winning Strategy Weekly Recipe.

This past Thursday, we discussed the risks my team encountered when using AI for backlog refinement.

Specifically, we looked at how AI behaves and how it confidently generates acceptance criteria, system behaviours, and trade-offs that look completely plausible but are often fabricated.

I shared the 7 essential guardrails my teams use to ensure the tool accelerates the work without taking decision-making ownership away from the team.

But understanding the guardrails and operationalizing them in an Agile environment are two different things.

To benefit from AI without the rework, we need a system that translates those principles into steps during our live sprint cadence.

This post bridges that gap.

You receive an artifact pack that you can add to your backlog workflow today, enabling your team to use AI for refinements with minimal risk.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

YES, we did.

And it went great… for about two weeks.

Then we spotted a problem.

The risk of using AI for refinement is that it sometimes produces bad output that is indistinguishable from good output.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about where AI helps in product discovery and delivery, and where it introduces risk that teams don't see until it's too late. In this post, I share 7 guardrails that are essential for any team using AI for backlog refinement.

I have conducted these tests across various refinement sessions, with multiple teams iteratively enhancing them.

Before I walk through each one, I want to name the one underlying principle that forms the basis of every guardrail.

Here it is. 👇

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Most Scrum Masters believe their job is to remove impediments. It says so right there in the Scrum Guide. It’s the first thing they teach you.

And…

It’s the single biggest reason your team can’t remove impediments… Without YOU!

When teams default to handing you every impediment, two things happen:

1. you burn out, and

2. the team learns helplessness

Agility at scale requires autonomous teams that can navigate their own roadblocks. If your team stops moving the moment you are not around, you are basically facilitating dependency.

To help your team resolve impediments without relying on you, you have to intentionally change your stance from fixing to enabling.

In this post, I want to show you

1. why teams become dependent on their Scrum Masters,

2. what’s happening in their brains when this happens, and

3. a four-part behavioural model for rewiring the habit

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

There’s a famous Bezos-ism that I think about a lot:

“Your margin is my opportunity.”

The idea is that wherever there’s inefficiency in a system, there’s an opportunity for someone to build something better.

Status meetings are exactly that. They are pure margin. They’re organizational overhead. And the opportunity is to replace them entirely with something that is async, consistent, and… let me say it… AI-generated.

In this post, I will share the system I've seen some Scrum Masters using to generate AI-powered reports for executives and stakeholders.

And let me tell you… they’ve been quite successful doing it.

But…

Before we kill the STATUS meetings and replace them with AI, we have to understand what the STATUS meetings are actually used for.

What’s their purpose?

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

The idea was simple:

Spikes shrink estimates ONLY WHEN they shrink the solution space, not when they confirm a solution exists.

What we need is a “Decision Spike.”

A Decision Spike is a session where we focus on clearly defining what will be built, what won't be, and the clarity needed to keep the timeline on track.

In today’s weekly recipe, I’m sharing the template to help you run a workshop for a Decision Spike.

It’s a 60-minute (time may vary) session that takes a stakeholder request (often a vague request) and turns it into confirmed increments with estimates, assumptions, and (most importantly) clear NOT-TO-DOs.

Note: This is more of a scoping session than a sprint planning. It's a great opportunity to get a clear understanding of a request as it first comes in, ideally before anyone starts writing anything.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

Robert Falcon Scott’s team did extensive preparation. They studied the terrain, tested their equipment, and built confidence that the journey was technically feasible. They knew they could make it.

Roald Amundsen’s team did something different. They picked a specific route. They pre-positioned supply depots at exact coordinates and decided, before they left, what they would NOT bring with them, what they would NOT attempt, and what had to be true at each checkpoint for the expedition to continue.

Scott’s team proved the trip was possible. Amundsen’s team defined the trip they were actually going to take.

Scott’s team didn’t succeed.

Why?

What happened?

If you are new to Winning Strategy, check out the posts below:

1. Weekly Recipe: The PO Q&A System

2. How to deal with the one difficult team member in your scrum team?

3. Weekly Recipe: How to deal with the one difficult team member in your scrum team?

4. How to prioritize defects when everything is critical?

5. Weekly Recipe: Prioritize defects when everything Is critical

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

The Spike for estimation problem is a Strategy problem

We all know about spikes?

If you haven't encountered it (lucky you, in some ways), here's the short version:

When a team faces a major technical unknown, they timebox a few days to build a quick prototype and determine whether the scary thing is actually scary.

If you want to explore the topic further, I have written a post on Spikes that you can check out at the link below:

It's a genuinely good idea.

It comes from the Extreme Programming tradition, it's battle-tested, and mature teams use it all the time.

Here's the thing, though. Spikes don’t always deliver something!

A team runs a spike. The spike succeeds, BUT the estimate doesn't change.

The prototype works.

But when the team sits down to estimate the actual time, the range is just as wide as before. The team is still unsure about the requested time commitment.

How is that possible?

It’s possible because most spikes (in general) solve for the Technical uncertainty. And that distinction between the uncertainty you think you have and the uncertainty you actually have turns out to be one of the most interesting (and underappreciated) dynamics in product development.

Let me show you what I mean.

Story of a mature team

A product team I worked with needed to ship enterprise SSO. Azure AD integration (to be precise) for a big B2B prospect.

Leadership wanted an answer to:

“Can we commit to delivering this in 6 weeks? Yes… or No?”

The team did what any experienced team would.

(1) They timeboxed a spike (3 days). (2) They picked the riskiest technical area (OIDC/SAML. (3) They aimed to “remove uncertainty.”

Which uncertainty? The technical one.

This was the output (what they delivered):

• a prototype that successfully authenticated against Azure AD in a sandbox

• a short document stating: “We can use OIDC; libraries exist; token validation is straightforward”

• a diagram of the auth flow

The spike worked. But the estimates?

They had no estimates.

They still had NO answer for how much time this will actually take to be production-ready.

Stakeholders were confused: “But you proved it works, why can’t you estimate it now?”

What went wrong?

The spike answered one question:

Can we technically authenticate against Azure AD?

Yes. Definitely yes.

But that question was never driving the estimates.

The estimates depended on a certain kind of uncertainty. The kind that involved a long list of decisions and dependencies.

Things like:

• Do we need just-in-time user provisioning or SCIM or manual invites?

• How do Azure AD groups map to internal permissions?

• How do we handle multiple enterprise tenants and domain discovery?

• What does the security team require before anything goes live?

• What happens with disabled accounts, renamed emails, and duplicate identities?

• Can we roll out per customer behind a feature flag?

• What does the support team need for the inevitable Monday morning "SSO is broken" fire drill?

None of these is a technical feasibility question. They're decision questions. Policy questions. Cross-team coordination and dependency questions.

Technical uncertainty is the easiest uncertainty to identify, so it is the uncertainty that gets most teams Spike. But estimation uncertainty is usually dominated by scope ambiguity, unknown decisions, and external dependencies.

A spike on Technical uncertainty does approximately nothing for the Estimation uncertainty.

Understand it like this:

Let’s say you're trying to estimate how long it'll take to drive from New York to Los Angeles.

The unknown in your mind is "can my car handle the Rocky Mountains?"

So you test the car on a steep hill. It handles it fine. Great.

Can you estimate your trip?

No!

Why?

The reason you can't estimate the trip is because you haven't yet decided whether you're stopping in Chicago, you don't know if the highway through Kansas is closed, and your friend who's supposed to meet you in Denver hasn't confirmed dates.

The car works. But the trip is still unplannable.

Why did the experienced team get this wrong?

This is the part I find genuinely fascinating, because each reason below corresponds to a different type of cognitive bias.

#1: Knowledge Without Decisions

The team above came back from the spike saying, “We can do OIDC. We could map groups later. We might need SCIM depending on customer requirements.”

Could. Might. Depending.

There's a concept in strategy called "real options," which is the idea that maintaining flexibility has value. And it does! In certain contexts.

But when you're trying to estimate something, optionality is the last thing you want.

Every open option multiplies the “solution space.”

The team were estimating a decision tree. And the expected value of a decision tree with seven unresolved branches is... wide.

#2: No Constraints

The team didn’t decide the Scope.

No one locked down statements like:

• “Phase 1 will not support group-based roles”

• “Phase 1 supports one tenant per customer”

• “Phase 1 is invite-only; no SCIM until Phase 2”

Without constraints, every “maybe” stayed inside the estimate.

As a result, estimates remained vague because, for stakeholders, “done” still meant “everything enterprise customers might want.”

#3: Ignored Dependencies

In most teams, the most likely thing to blow up the timeline is WAITING.

Waiting for:

• security review lead time

• infra changes (redirect URIs, secret storage, cert rotation)

• customer IT coordination (metadata, app registration, testing windows)

The spike the team performed didn’t secure any commitments or timelines from those dependencies.

As a result, the team still couldn’t forecast dates because the critical path was dependent on 3 different teams… Security, Infrastructure and IT.

How did they fix it later?

The team re-ran the spike.

They now had a clear goal in mind for the technical spike:

"By Friday, the spike will help us know exactly what we are shipping in Phase 1, what we are clearly not shipping in Phase 1, and what external conditions must be true for the timeline to hold."

Here’s what the Spike looked like:

Timebox: 2 days

Inputs from: Product + Delivery Lead + Security rep + one engineer

Decision to make by the end of the spike: What is “in scope” and what is “out of scope” for a 6-week timeframe (Phase 1)?

For example:

Scope:

• OIDC only (no SAML in Phase 1)

• No SCIM in Phase 1

• Role mapping is manual (group sync deferred)

• Per-customer feature flag rollout

• "Done" = audit logging + v1 support runbook

Evidence required:

• thin vertical slice in staging with auth, feature flag and logs

• lightweight security sign-off via threat model checklist

• written non-goals included in the epic

Phase 1 (6 weeks) backlog change required. Splitting the epic into 3 increments with separate estimates:

• Increment 1 (2 weeks): SSO login behind flag, single tenant

• Increment 2 (2 weeks): Admin config, audit logs, runbook

• Increment 3 (2 weeks): Role mapping and SCIM (later)

Estimating this was straightforward.

🎯 Weekly Recipe

Stay tuned for Sunday’s Weekly Recipe, where I’ll share a step-by-step guide for running decision spikes, including templates and facilitation tips.

What did the team learn?

Let’s zoom out for a second

In strategy, there’s a distinction between learning and committing.

Both are valuable. But they serve different functions, and confusing them leads to a very specific kind of organizational frustration, the feeling that you’re doing all the right things and somehow not making progress.

A traditional spike is a learning tool. It says, "We don't know if this is technically feasible, so let's find out." It works great when technical feasibility is the binding constraint.

But on most mature teams, building the thing is rarely the constraint. The binding constraint in such teams is deciding what to build, coordinating external dependencies, and defining what "done" means in a way everyone agrees on.

So the team needs a technical spike that can help them make these decisions.

A Decision Spike.

A decision spike is a commitment tool. It says,

"We have enough information to decide. The decision will help us reshape the backlog."

So, how do you tell if your spike will actually help?

Here's a simple test.

Spikes increase estimate accuracy ONLY when they shrink the solution space. Which means it should produce at least one of the following:

1. A decision (we chose X, not Y)

2. Constraints/non-goals (we will not do Z in this release)

3. The smallest shippable slice (this is what ships first)

4. Dependency commitments (security/infra/customer IT: who, what, when)

5. A rewritten backlog (split stories/epics that reflect the new decision)

If your spike does not end with the above, then that's research. Research is valuable! But it won't result in an accurate estimate.

Next time your team raises an estimate spike

Even experienced teams can fall into the trap of running spikes that feel productive but fail to answer the required question.

Next time someone proposes a spike for estimates, ask this:

“What uncertainty will this spike remove, and how will that reduce the range of our estimate?”

If the answer is clear, run the spike.

If the answer is vague, i.e. “we’ll learn more about the problem space,” that’s fine, but set expectations accordingly. You probably won’t be able to provide estimates.

The bottom line: spikes help in estimates when they shrink the solution space, not when they confirm a solution exists. The best teams don’t just spike the technical risk. They spike the ambiguity. And those are almost never the same thing.

That’s it for today!

So…Why Scott’s Team Didn’t Succeed

Let’s close the loop on the story we started with.

Why didn’t Robert Falcon Scott’s team succeed in their race to the South Pole, despite knowing the journey was technically possible?

Because Scott’s team ran a Technical Spike, while Amundsen’s team ran a Decision Spike.

Scott’s preparation proved that the equipment worked and the terrain could be crossed. But just like the engineering team that proved OIDC authentication worked in a sandbox, Scott’s team gathered Knowledge Without Decisions.

Amundsen, on the other hand, shrank his solution space. He committed to one method of transport (dogs). He defined strict non-goals (leaving behind anything that wasn't absolutely essential for survival and speed). He secured his dependencies by laying depots at exact, mathematically calculated coordinates before setting out

In short, Scott confirmed the expedition could work. Amundsen defined exactly how it would work.

The result is what we all know.

Show your support

Every post on Winning Strategy takes a few days of research and 1 full day of writing. You can show your support with small gestures.

Liked this post? Make sure to 💙 click the like button.

Feedback or addition? Make sure to 💬 comment.

Know someone who would find this helpful? Make sure to recommend it.

I strongly advise that you download and use the Substack app. This will allow you to access our community chat, where you can get your questions answered and your doubts cleared promptly.

Further Reading

1. SPIKES - 101

2. Non Functional Requirements are Ignored

3. I spotted 9 problems in a healthy looking team backlog

Connect With Me

• Connect on LinkedIn (I publish every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday)

• Connect on Community Chat

• Connect on YouTube

Winning Strategy provides insights from my experiences at Twitter, Amazon, and my current role as an Executive Product Coach at one of North America’s largest banks.

Leave a comment

On Thursday, we discussed the pitfalls of the “everything is critical” backlog and why misunderstanding Severity and Priority can destroy a team’s ability to deliver.

We talked about the "Homeland Security" trap of defect management, where every defect is labelled 'Critical' or 'P1'. When everything is on fire, your backlog becomes a busy suggestion box, and your team loses the ability to actually prioritize.

If you missed it, here’s the link.

Knowing the theory, however, is only half the battle. The actual challenge is walking into that triage meeting on Monday morning, facing new defects, and actually changing how your team and stakeholders operate.

That’s exactly what today’s recipe is for.

Below, you’ll find the exact templates, facilitation steps, and metrics you need to implement this two-knob system, plus a few hard lessons on what didn’t work when I first rolled this out in the trenches.

Let’s dive in.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

If you are anywhere from North America or have lived here for some time, then you might remember the Homeland Security Advisory System?

After 9/11, the US government introduced a colour-coded threat level to tell Americans how scared to be on any given day. Green meant "low risk." Red meant "severe."

It was a clean, simple communication tool.

Nevertheless… it failed!

Why?

Because the threat level sat at Yellow ("Elevated") for essentially its entire existence.

It never ever dropped to Green or ever hit Red. It just… hovered in the upper-middle of the scale, permanently, for years, until the government quietly replaced it in 2011 because people stopped paying attention to it.

It failed because a label that’s always “Yellow” communicates nothing.

I bring this up because there's a very good chance your engineering team is running its own version of the Homeland Security Advisory System right now, except instead of terror threats, it's defects.

Just like the terror threat level was mostly “Yellow,” the defects are almost always Sev-1 (or P1) and critical.

“Critical” has become a catch-all label.

And once everything is critical, the team loses its ability to make trade-offs and decide what to fix first.

In this post, I discuss how I have seen mature teams address this problem.

This will be followed by the Weekly Recipe on the coming Sunday, which you can download and apply directly to your team.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

On Thursday, March 5th, 2026, we discussed the “Bad Apple” effect and why relying solely on 1:1 conversations to address difficult team members rarely works.

We learned that Scrum teams are cooperative machines, and when someone defects (misses commitments, ignores process or team norms, etc.), you need a systemic response.

Today’s recipe, which is in the form of a workbook, will help you build that system.

The Accountability Workbook walks you through the exact steps to diagnose the behavior, fix the team environment, hold the individual accountable, and, if necessary, escalate with a proper paper trail.

You can download the recipe below.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

He planted a bad actor in small working groups, sometimes a slacker, sometimes a jerk and measured the group's performance.

It turned out that one person can reduce a group's performance by 30 to 40 percent.

The bad apple didn’t do any direct sabotage.

Instead, just their mere presence was enough to indirectly change the team's emotional and behavioural equilibrium. The other members began mirroring that negativity. For example, they too started bickering, disengaging, and checking out.

The dysfunction spread through the team, affecting everyone.

However, a few groups were able to resist this.

The groups that resisted the effect were the ones with a member who actively managed the dynamic, who redirected conversations, defused tension, and reestablished norms in real time.

In other words, the presence of the bad apple was a constant. Whether it destroyed the team… depended on the system around it.

Today, I want to talk about dealing with this bad apple step by step.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

The Coordination Problem

The thing about Scrum teams… or any small, cross-functional team trying to ship work in short cycles is that…

They're COOPERATION machines.

This kind of model depends on a set of unspoken agreements:

For example:

• I'll do my part, you'll do yours,

• We'll be transparent about progress,

• We'll hold a shared quality bar, and

• When something goes wrong, we'll adapt together rather than pointing fingers

But…

If you look closely at it, you will find that it is ACTUALLY an Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma.

Note: The Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma is a very interesting concept. Check it out at the link provided.

Every Sprint is a new round of the game. Every Sprint commitment is a signal of cooperation. And the whole thing works beautifully... right up until one player starts defecting in one of the following ways:

• they over-commit and under-deliver

• they bypass the Definition of Done

• they let work sit in progress for days without raising a flag and then dump the risk on the team at the end of the Sprint

• or maybe they just refuse to engage with the process at all

It doesn't matter which defection it is. What matters is the second-order effect.

Here’s what it means:

When one person consistently defects in an iterated game (like Sprints), one of two things happens. Either the other players start defecting too, i.e. they stop going the extra mile, they protect their own work, they quietly disengage, OR they start over-cooperating to compensate, absorbing the defector's risk, Sprint after Sprint, until THEY BURN OUT AND LEAVE.

Both outcomes eventually destroy the team.

So what should you do?

Should you have a 1:1 meeting with them?

Why "talking to them 1:1" is necessary but not sufficient

Every article on dealing with difficult team members eventually comes to the same advice: have an honest conversation… 1:1.

And look, that’s correct.

You absolutely need to have the 1:1 conversation. It is “necessary.”

But…

It is not sufficient.

Just like building a great product is “necessary” for building a great company, but it is not “sufficient.” (You also need distribution, timing, capital, talent, and about forty other things.)

Now…

Here’s how it generally goes:

• you notice the problem…

• … you agonize about it for three weeks,

• … you finally have The 1:1 Conversation,

• … it goes reasonably well,

• … you both agree to do better, and then...

• … absolutely nothing changes

Two Sprints later, you're back where you started, except now you're also annoyed that The 1:1 Conversation didn't work.

The conversation didn't work because “conversations” ARE NOT systems.

A conversation is a point-in-time event. And a system is a persistent structure that shapes behavior continuously. You need both, but if you only have the conversation without changing the system, you're basically hoping that a single input will permanently alter someone's behavior.

That's not how people work. That's not how anything works.

So here's what I want to do.

I want to walk you through the full stack of interventions, from diagnosis to system design to escalation, and show you how each layer builds on the previous one.

We will build a “team level” infrastructure of accountability.

This will be followed by the Weekly Recipe on the coming Sunday, which you can apply directly to your team.

Read more

If we want to build the right product, we need to cultivate a sustainable habit of clarification.

We want a Q&A system that can help us build a shared understanding.

Today, I’m sharing this PO Q&A System.

As always, this system has been tested and proven by many teams I have worked with previously. Adopting it will help you and your team in establishing consistent decision-making.

Here is what this system covers:

• The Intake process: How to capture questions

• The Questioning Format: To close the gap between a question and a response

• The SLA: Clear time-bound expectations

• A visible, documented outcome

• A triage + escalation path

• The Anti-Pattern: What didn’t work for us

Let’s get started.

Note: The link to the archive containing all past templates will soon be emailed to all yearly paid subscribers.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more

I’ve been the person asking the questions. The person dodging the questions. The person who didn’t even realize there were questions until everything was on fire.

So believe me when I tell you that “I’m always available for questions” is one of the most dangerous sentences in product development.

Don’t get me wrong.

The Product Owner is a good person trying to do a good job. The development team is a capable group of people trying to do their best jobs. And somehow, with all of that goodwill in the room, the team struggles to get timely answers.

Why?

Last Sunday, I announced a new format for the Winning Strategy newsletter:

• Thursday posts: Actionable insights

• Sunday posts: Weekly recipes (template + facilitation guidelines + what didn’t work (for us) + metrics)

Since this is a Thursday post, it will provide insight into this particular why.

Why… even when the Product Owner says they’re available for questions, the team struggles to get timely answers.

Let’s get started.

If you are new to Winning Strategy, check out the posts below:

1. How to transform your working agreement into a conflict operating protocol?

2. How to help your team avoid rework

3. Autonomy vs Commitment

4. How to eliminate dependencies?

5. Why Does Your Team Feel Busy But Deliver Nothing?

6. Is AI going to kill estimates?

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Let’s define the problem

Imagine this: I bet you’ve gone through something similar at some point.

Monday morning. Standup. A developer mentions they’re unclear on how a feature is supposed to behave. The Product Owner says, “Hey, just ping me. I’m always around.”

Monday afternoon. That developer pings. He has been heads-down building. He didn’t get a reply from the PO. The developer made an assumption around 1:30 p.m. and kept going.

Friday. The assumption turned out to be incorrect. The feature also has issues. The sprint review doesn’t go as planned. Everyone feels frustrated.

Is this a communication problem? I know it looks like one. It isn't.

Then what is it?

Availability is not a gesture

Saying "I’m always available" is a nice gesture. It is just a nicer way of saying "I don’t know when I am available."

Let me give you an analogy that's going to sound ridiculous, but stick with me.

I want you to think about how a restaurant works.

You don’t walk into the kitchen and tap the chef on the shoulder. There’s a system. You sit, you order, the order enters a queue, and the food arrives. It is predictable and reliable.

Now imagine the chef says, “Just come find me whenever you’re hungry.”

That’s what “I’m always available for questions” really is.

It puts the burden of initiation on the person who needs help, and the burden of context-switching on the person giving it. The question has to compete with meetings, stakeholder escalations, Slack requests, and whatever deep thinking the PO was in the middle of.

So PO responses become inconsistent.

PO does care, but there's no system to deliver the response in a timely manner.

As a result, the team begins to hesitate. They ask late. They ask in three different places. Or they stop asking altogether and just guess.

Good intentions without proper process produce the same result as no intentions at all.

So…

The problem we have just defined is not a communication problem. It is a process problem, and you can see this clearly when you look at the following patterns.

#1: The questions generally have no place to live

A developer asks a question in a Jira comment on Tuesday.

The PO answers that question in a Slack thread on Wednesday.

A different developer asks the same question in standup on Thursday because they never saw this exchange of question and answer.

The PO answers again, slightly differently this time, because the context has changed.

Now there are two answers in two places, neither of which is attached to the story where the work actually lives.

When questions and answers spread across Slack threads, Jira comments, meeting notes, DMs, and hallway conversations, you don’t have a communication system. You have a scavenger hunt.

And the next person who picks up that story in two sprints, or two months, will find… nothing!

#2: Nobody tracks how long questions sit unanswered

Teams are great at tracking stories, bugs, deployments, velocity. But almost no one tracks how long a question sits without a response.

As a result a requirement question that’s been unanswered for 2 days doesn’t appear anywhere… until it surfaces as rework or sprint spillover.

When this happens, you’ll notice people saying, “We didn’t realize it wasn’t clarified.” Because there was literally no process to make that visible.

You can’t manage what you can’t see, and decision turnaround time is one of the biggest invisible bottlenecks in sprint delivery.

#3: Most "quick questions" actually involve hidden decision-making

Let’s say a developer asks: “Should the confirmation email go to the account owner or the billing contact?”

Seems simple.

Except that the PO knows that different stakeholders have different opinions, nobody has aligned yet, and answering this “quick question” actually requires a trade-off conversation with two other people.

What you’ll notice: Answers that arrive are either partial decisions or are delayed by one or two days.

Many questions that appear to be clarifications are actually scope calls, trade-offs, or policy decisions in disguise. And “I’m always available” doesn’t help when the answer requires coordination, not just knowledge.

#4: Decision authority is undefined

Here’s a question you must ask your PO: “Which questions can you answer on your own, and which ones do you need to escalate?”

If the PO doesn't know the boundary…

They’ll treat every question cautiously. They’ll delay and will say, “Let me check.”

If the team doesn’t know the boundary…

They can’t tell the difference between a ten-minute answer and a three-day stakeholder alignment exercise.

So they wait. At the same pace. For everything.

This is fixable in one conversation. Most teams never have that conversation.

#5: The PO waits for certainty before responding

The PO wants to give the right answer. Not a guess. So they wait until they’re sure. Which means the team waits, except the team does not know that it is waiting.

In most cases, a “provisional answer” is infinitely more valuable than a perfect answer that arrives two days late.

But nobody told the PO that a “provisional answer” was an option. Nobody gave them the language for “here’s my best call right now, safe to build on, and here’s what we’d redo if it changes.”

They don’t want to sound negligent.

So they stay silent out of a sense of responsibility. Which is frustrating, because the responsible thing is actually causing the damage.

Here's what works in such situations

Start thinking of the PO’s availability as a service that needs to be designed.

Just like in restaurants.

A well-designed answering service has three properties:

One intake point: A single, agreed-upon place where questions go. If it’s not there, it doesn’t exist.

A response promise: A specific, realistic turnaround time. Not “as soon as I can.” An actual number.

A visible outcome: The decision gets documented in Jira. Not in a Slack thread that disappears by Friday.

When teams adopt this approach, they stop trying to “communicate better” and start reducing blocked time and rework, which is measurable.

It’s a small change, but it produces surprisingly good results.

Coming this Sunday

This Sunday’s Weekly Recipe will include a ready-to-use template called The PO Q and A System, including:

• the intake process,

• triage scripts,

• SLA options,

• a lightweight format for documenting decisions inside story tickets

You can copy and adapt it.

You’ll be surprised by how much delivery friction comes from this one blind spot and how quickly it clears up once you give it a little structure.

Have a great week, and I’ll see you on Sunday ✌️

Show your support

Every post on Winning Strategy takes a few days of research and 1 full day of writing. You can show your support with small gestures.

Liked this post? Make sure to 💙 click the like button.

Feedback or addition? Make sure to 💬 comment.

Know someone who would find this helpful? Make sure to recommend it.

I strongly advise that you download and use the Substack app. This will allow you to access our community chat, where you can get your questions answered and your doubts cleared promptly.

Further Reading

1. Product Owner Doesn’t Attend Scrum Events!

2. First 30 Days of a Product Owner - Complete Schedule

3. Product Owner Onboarding - Training Deck

Connect With Me

• Connect on LinkedIn (I publish every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday)

• Connect on Community Chat

• Connect on YouTube

Winning Strategy provides insights from my experiences at Twitter, Amazon, and my current role as an Executive Product Coach at one of North America’s largest banks.

Leave a comment

Under Pressure.

We discussed why, during high-pressure situations, nobody pulls up the agreement. Why teams usually revert to the original manifesto?

Things like:

• urgency over outcomes

• hierarchy over collaboration

• “whoever shouts loudest” over decision making

• heroics over sustainable delivery

• Slack priorities over prioritization

And because nothing officially breaks, i.e. no one is specifically “against” the agreement, the routine repeats.

Read Part-1 here if you haven’t already.

In this post, which is Part-2 of the series, we discuss the solution. A recipe that you can apply to your dysfunctional Working Agreement.

Let’s get started.

BTW, speaking of “recipes,” I have an important announcement to make.

📣 Announcement

Starting next week, I am bringing a new format to these newsletters to make them more practical and usable in the trenches.

Introducing Weekly Recipes (launching Thu 26 Feb + Sun 1 Mar).

Every week on Sunday, you’ll get a tested, ready-to-use RECIPE that you can apply immediately to your team environment as an Agile Delivery Lead, Scrum Master, or Product Owner.

What’s a recipe?

A recipe is a short, repeatable “how-to” you can run in your work situation, with a clear structure, suggested wording, and key inputs, so you can adapt it to your context without starting from scratch.

It will be a combination of: template + facilitation guidelines + what didn’t work (for us) + metrics, with recommendations on:

• When to use it (and when not to)

• What you need before you start

• A clear, straightforward (but strategic) approach

These recipes are the wonderful result of collaboration between the Product Experts I've had the pleasure of working with in the past and the talented individuals I am currently lucky enough to work with.

How will it work (every week)

• Thursday: Post with insight + actionable takeaway

• Sunday: the Weekly Recipe

What paid members get:

• Monthly + Yearly subscribers: The complete recipe (including the full template/script)

• Yearly subscribers: Access to the growing Recipe Library with the Archive of all the past templates that have already been published on Winning Strategy

I’m excited to ship these because they’re the exact tools I wish I had while working with teams under pressure. More on this next Thursday.

Back to How Mature Agile Teams Handle Pressure? (Part-2)

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Working Agreement to Team Protocols Workshop

The purpose of this workshop is to document 3–5 rules written as If → Then behaviors. These will be embedded into Scrum events, with owners, escalation paths, and consequences.

To start…

Ask everyone (PO, SM, Devs) to submit answers (scenarios) to the following two questions:

1. “What’s a recent moment of pressure where we didn’t act like our working agreement?”

2. “What’s the most common ‘problem’ in our team: priority, scope, quality, decision-making, interruptions, stakeholder bypassing, or something else?”

You’ll bring these answers (scenarios) into the workshop below.

Read more

THEY ARE USELESS.

Why?

Because 99% of teams build them wrong. They write them like mission statements full of aspirational garbage that sounds great when they are first written, but means nothing when things go sideways.

Every team I worked with had one. Most teams ignored theirs. And the pattern of ignoring it right when they needed it most revealed the gap that answers how groups actually make decisions under pressure.

This post explains the reasons behind that gap.

It’s a two-part series.

This is Part 1 of “How Mature Agile Teams Handle Pressure?”

Part-1: Why your working agreement is useless under pressure? ← this post

Part-2: How to transform a working agreement into an operating protocol?

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Reason#1: Your Agreement Is Full of Values, Not Instructions

Yep.

Your Working Agreement sounds like the Agile Manifesto:

"We communicate openly." "We respect each other." "We assume positive intent."

Cool. Now what?

These are values. They tell you what to care about. They don’t tell you what to do. And when you’re in the middle of a production incident or a stakeholder is screaming about a Friday deadline, your brain doesn’t need philosophy. It needs a decision tree.

Something that can help your team make decisions like:

“Who makes the call right now?”

“What do we do when we disagree?”

“What happens when someone goes around the process?”

“How do we stop this from turning into a two-hour argument?”

If your agreement doesn’t answer these questions specifically, it won't be used. Period.

Your brain can’t execute “be respectful” under cognitive load. It needs: “When we disagree on priority, the PO makes the final call. If the team thinks it’s a technical risk issue, we escalate to the CTO within 24 hours.”

That’s a protocol, and it is SUPER usable.

Read more

The Product Owner walks through a story, asks, "Any questions?" and gets nothing but silence.

It's one of the most common frustrations I hear from Agile teams.

Developers are not asking questions.

But why?

The most common reason people have found is that their environment, the way the stories are presented, the format, the culture, all of this, is telling them not to.

Refinements are intended to get developers to ask the right questions at the right time… before the code is written.

In practice, however, refinements are quiet. Product Owner reads a ticket aloud, developers nod politely, and everyone disperses to "figure it out during dev."

Then, two weeks later, there is rework.

How do we fix this?

In this post, I'll share 9 practical techniques for creating conditions that naturally surface the 10 clarifying questions that matter most.

Plus: There is a template included that you can use implement these techniques in your refinements 🎁.

Let’s get started.

Got an urgent question?

Get a quick answer by joining the subscriber chat below.

Read more