During a sprint retrospective, your team identifies that they spent 40% of the sprint fixing production defects that escaped from previous sprints rather than working on new features. The team proposes adding a 'quality sprint' every third sprint where they do no new development and only focus on fixing technical debt and improving test coverage. The product owner objects, stating this will reduce feature delivery by 33% and jeopardize committed roadmap dates. The team argues they cannot maintain quality with the current pace. How should you facilitate resolution of this conflict?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is B. Option B is correct because it addresses both concerns through sustainable integration of quality work into every sprint, rather than separating it. This approach maintains continuous value delivery while systematically reducing technical debt (ECO Process Task 2.5 - deliver value incrementally). Allocating capacity for quality in each sprint prevents the feast-or-famine cycle and creates sustainable improvement. Option A is the main distractor—while quality is important, completely stopping feature development creates its own problems and ignores the product owner's legitimate business concerns. The solution should balance both needs, not choose one over the other. Option C addresses prevention but doesn't solve the existing technical debt problem. Option D creates silos and prevents the team from owning their quality, violating agile principles of team autonomy and collective ownership.

More Process Questions