Scope creep = unplanned work added mid-sprint without removing equivalent work
Rollover = stories not finished; carried to the next sprint
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
A Jira sprint report shows:
Sprint: "Sprint 42" — Day 6 of 10 Total commitment: 42 story points Completed: 18 pts Remaining: 24 pts Ideal remaining on day 6: 16.8 pts
How would you describe the sprint status at the daily standup?
Both B and C are correct — they just emphasise different things:
Option B (comparing to ideal burndown): • 18 / 42 = 43% complete • Day 6/10 = 60% of sprint time elapsed • Ideal: 42 × (1 − 6/10) = 16.8 pts remaining • Actual: 24 pts remaining → 24 − 16.8 = 7.2 pts behind ideal → Best for stakeholders and PMs who look at charts
Option C (projection / remaining-velocity): • Daily velocity so far: 18 pts / 6 days = 3 pts/day • Days remaining: 4 • Points remaining: 24 • Required velocity: 24 / 4 = 6 pts/day — twice current pace → Best for the dev team at standup — actionable, concrete
Key vocabulary: • burndown — chart showing remaining work over time; should trend toward 0 by sprint end • ideal burndown — straight line from total commitment on day 1 to 0 on day 10 • velocity — story points completed per day (or per sprint) • at risk — the sprint goal may not be achieved without changes • commitment — the total work the team agreed to complete
A manager says "great sprint — 100% delivered!" Is this accurate?
Option B is most nuanced and accurate.
The calculation: • Original commitment: 38 pts • Added mid-sprint: +9 pts • Removed mid-sprint: −6 pts • Net change: +3 pts (scope grew) • Delivered: 38 pts = original 38, but we don't know which were from the originals vs. the added items
Scope change is not automatically bad, but it needs context: • Added because: urgent bug fix needed? Good reason. • Removed because: story was too large, blocked, or deprioritised?
Key vocabulary: • scope creep — unplanned work added mid-sprint, often without removing other items (negative connotation) • scope change — neutral term for any addition or removal of work • sprint health — overall quality of sprint execution (predictability, focus, delivery) • predictability — how consistently a team delivers what they commit to
Useful phrase: "We delivered 100% of our original commitment, but the scope shifted mid-sprint — we'll discuss that at retro to improve our planning."
Why option C is best: 1. Uses the rolling average (industry standard for sprint planning) 2. Rounds down — cautious, realistic 3. Flags the variance — the range 28–43 is 15 pts wide, which is significant
Variance analysis: • Sprints alternate between ~28 and ~40+ pts • This could indicate: holidays, on-call rotation, scope creep, or team composition changes • Identifying the cause of variance improves planning
Key vocabulary: • rolling average / rolling mean — average of the most recent N values, updated each sprint • velocity — story points delivered per sprint • variance / standard deviation — how spread out the values are • capacity — the team's available time/effort for a sprint (may differ from velocity if people are OOO) • safety margin — intentionally planning slightly less than capacity to handle uncertainty
Phrase to use: "Our rolling average is 35.6 — I'd suggest committing to 34–35 this sprint and reviewing why sprints 39 and 42 came in below average."
4 / 5
A sprint retrospective note reads:
"Burndown was flat for the first 6 days, then steep in the last 4."
What does this pattern most likely indicate?
Flat then steep burndown is a classic anti-pattern:
What "flat" means: Little or no work was marked complete during days 1–6. Possible causes: • Stories were in progress but not closed until "done" • Blockers (waiting for design, API, review, dependency) • Team was working but not breaking work into small enough increments • Work estimated as complete wasn't meeting the "Definition of Done"
What "steep" means: Many stories completed quickly in the final 4 days — a late rush to close tickets.
Why this is a problem: • Hides risk: stakeholders see "no progress" for most of the sprint • Stressful for the team • Doesn't give time to course-correct if something goes wrong
Key vocabulary: • flat burndown — remaining work isn't decreasing (no progress visible) • late-sprint crunch — rush of closures at sprint end • J-curve burndown — flat, then steep — looks like the letter J flipped • Definition of Done (DoD) — agreed criteria a story must meet before it's "complete" • blocker — something preventing a story from progressing • anti-pattern — a common bad practice that looks reasonable but causes problems
5 / 5
An engineering manager presents this quarterly summary:
Q3 sprint summary (6 sprints) Average velocity: 37.3 pts Average completion rate: 89% Scope change rate: 22% of stories added after sprint start Rollover rate: 15% of stories carried to next sprint
How would you describe Q3 performance in one clear sentence?
Option C is the most balanced and precise description.
Reading the metrics: • 89% completion rate — strong; industry benchmark for healthy teams is often 80–90% • 37.3 pts velocity — useful for future sprint planning • 22% scope change — relatively high; more than 1 in 5 stories was added after sprint start • 15% rollover — 1 in 7 stories carries to the next sprint unfinished
The key insight: 89% completion sounds great, but the scope change rate (22%) partly explains it — if stories are added AND removed mid-sprint, the "committed" scope isn't stable. True planning accuracy = how often original commitments are met exactly.
Key vocabulary: • completion rate — % of sprint-committed stories delivered by end of sprint • scope change rate — % of stories modified (added/removed) after sprint planning • rollover rate — % of stories that weren't finished and moved to the next sprint • planning accuracy — how reliably a team delivers its initial commitments without changes • benchmark — a reference value used to compare performance
Useful framing phrase: "The numbers look solid overall, but the scope change and rollover rates are worth a closer look in the Q4 planning session."