Product Owners in Practice
The Product Owner is the person responsible for determining what the team is going to build. This is an important construct in Scrum because it unifies the voice of the business for the team. The Product Owner gives the team unambiguous direction and ensures they don't have to worry about conflicting business priorities.
As a community, we seem to be backing away from the idea of a Product Owner as the single wringable neck... but that's really the whole point, isn't it? We need to have ONE person that is RESPONSIBLE for telling the team what to build. Without it, how are we sure we are building the right product? How do we know the person defining the backlog can singularly and authoritatively guide the output of the team?
In reality though, how often does one person really own a product? If there really is one person that owns the product, how often does that person have time to sit full time with the team? Is it realistic to ask the real Product Owner serve as Product Manager, Project Manager, and Analyst? Is it realistic we can have one person own the vision and guide the execution in any but the most trivial of organizations?
As Scrum goes more mainstream, there seems to be acknowledgement that most of the time, we have multiple people filling the role, most of whom are merely proxies for the real decision makers. If this has become the norm, if we don't have a single authoritative voice to guide the team, if we don't have a single person that decides what to build, what is the point of having a role called Product Owner anyway?
I wonder if most of us are even honoring the basic principles behind why the Product Owner role was created in the first place? Are we bending Scrum because the demands it places on us are just too great?
So again, I find myself asking questions like... if the PO doesn't really OWN the product, are we bending Scrum past it's acceptable limits? If we have several stakeholders in a PO team, are we doing Scrum-but? Do I REALLY have to empower a SINGLE person to be ACCOUNTABLE for telling the team what to build? If I don't am I really doing Scrum? Where are the limits? What defines acceptable adaptation?
So... I think what is nagging me here is a growing dissonance between what you might call textbook Scrum, and Scrum as practiced in most organizations, by most people I talk with. I don't want to bash Scrum, I want to reconcile how we teach it, how we certify it, with how it is generally practiced. And by all means, if we are going to certify these adaptations, I'd like to see us start including them in our body of knowledge, however lightweight or informal.