The best way for multiple Scrum Teams to deliver a valuable and useful Increment in a Sprint is to complete work that integrates with all of the other work from other Scrum Teams on the initiative. This means that the Scrum Teams collaborate and coordinate their work to produce a single Integrated Increment that meets the Definition of Done and the Product Goal. The Integrated Increment is the combined work of all the Scrum Teams that is potentially releasable and provides value to the customers and stakeholders 11.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

Each Scrum Team delivering done Increments of its own area of responsibility and integrating them into a whole product during stabilization prior to release is not a good idea, as it violates the Scrum principles and values. The Scrum Guide states that the Scrum Team delivers a product Increment that is usable and valuable at the end of every Sprint, not at the end of the release 22. Delaying the integration until the stabilization phase would compromise the transparency, the feedback, and the adaptability of the Scrum Teams.

Each Scrum Team providing a unique done Increment that includes the team's added functionality is not a good idea, as it does not ensure that the product Increment is integrated and consistent across the initiative. The Scrum Guide states that the product Increment is the sum of all the Product Backlog items completed during a Sprint and all previous Sprints 22. If each Scrum Team provides a unique Increment, they may not be aligned with the Product Goal and the Definition of Done, and they may create conflicts or dependencies with other Scrum Teams.

Functionality not integrated with the work of other Scrum Teams being delivered as unintegrated Increments to demonstrate the value created by the Scrum Teams unable to completely integrate their Increments is not a good idea, as it does not ensure that the product Increment is done and valuable. The Scrum Guide states that the product Increment must be usable and meet the Definition of Done 22. If some functionality is not integrated with the work of other Scrum Teams, it may not be usable or valuable to the customers and stakeholders, and it may introduce technical debt or quality issues.

Moving away from component teams toward feature teams is a significant change that should be considered carefully. Here are some of the factors that should be taken into account:

Feature teams have less communication overhead than component teams, as they are able to deliver end-to-end customer features without relying on other teams or components 11. This reduces the complexity and the dependencies among the teams, and improves the transparency and the feedback loop. Feature teams also foster more collaboration and cross-functional learning among the team members, as they have to work on different aspects of the product 22.

When making this change, it helps to have support from the organization, as it may require a shift in the culture, the structure, and the processes of the company 33. The organization should provide the necessary resources, training, and coaching to the teams to help them adopt the feature team model. The organization should also align its goals, incentives, and metrics with the feature team approach, and remove any barriers or impediments that may hinder the teams' performance 44.

Productivity may decrease when making this kind of change, as the teams may face some challenges and difficulties in the transition period 55. For example, the teams may have to learn new skills, technologies, or domains that they are not familiar with. The teams may also have to deal with legacy code, technical debt, or integration issues that may slow down their delivery. The teams may also experience some resistance or conflict from the existing component teams or stakeholders. Therefore, the teams should expect some temporary setbacks and losses in productivity, and focus on continuous improvement and adaptation.

The other options are not correct for the following reasons:

With feature teams, it is not easier to calculate the productivity per team, as productivity is not a simple or straightforward metric to measure in software development [6]. Productivity depends on various factors, such as the quality, the value, the complexity, and the customer satisfaction of the product. Moreover, focusing on the productivity per team may create a competitive or individualistic mindset among the teams, rather than a collaborative or collective one. The teams should focus on delivering the best possible product Increment that meets the Product Goal and the Definition of Done, rather than on maximizing their productivity [7].

You can do Scrum without feature teams, as Scrum does not prescribe any specific team structure or organization [8]. Scrum only requires that the Scrum Team is cross-functional, self-organizing, and accountable for delivering a potentially releasable product Increment every Sprint [9]. However, feature teams are generally more aligned with the Scrum values and principles, as they enable the teams to deliver customer-centric features faster and more frequently, and to respond to changes more effectively [10]. Therefore, feature teams are recommended, but not mandatory, for Scrum.

PBI 2 is the most concerning because it involves a cross-team dependency within the same Sprint, which can create challenges and risks for the integration and delivery of the product increment. According to the Online Nexus Guide1, dependencies should be minimized or eliminated as much as possible, and if they exist, they should be made transparent and resolved as early as possible. Cross-team dependencies within the same Sprint can cause delays, conflicts, rework, and waste, and reduce the quality and value of the product increment 234.

The other answers are not correct for the following reasons:

A . PBI 2, because it has the most dependencies. This answer is not accurate because PBI 2 does not have the most dependencies, but only one dependency with PBI 1 from Team Red. PBI 3 has the most dependencies, as it depends on PBI 1, PBI 2, and PBI 4. However, PBI 3 is not as concerning as PBI 2, because its dependencies are not within the same Sprint, but across different Sprints. This means that PBI 3 can be refined and planned in advance, and the teams can coordinate and communicate their work more effectively 5.

B . PBI 1, because it is on the top of the Product Backlog. This answer is not relevant because the position of PBI 1 on the Product Backlog does not indicate its level of concern, but its priority and value. The Product Backlog is ordered by the Product Owner based on various factors, such as business value, risk, complexity, and dependencies. PBI 1 may be on the top of the Product Backlog because it is the most valuable or urgent item, or because it is a prerequisite for other items, but it is not necessarily the most concerning item 6.

C . PBI 1, because it is the first piece of work with a dependency. This answer is not true because PBI 1 is not the first piece of work with a dependency, but the first piece of work that other items depend on. PBI 1 does not have any dependencies itself, but it creates dependencies for PBI 2, PBI 3, and PBI 5. Therefore, PBI 1 is not as concerning as PBI 2, because it does not depend on any other item, and it can be completed independently by Team Red 5.

The Nexus Sprint Review is an event that occurs at the end of the Sprint where the Nexus, which is a group of approximately three to nine Scrum Teams working on the same product, presents the Integrated Increment to the stakeholders and collects feedback 12. The Integrated Increment is the combined work of all the Scrum Teams in the Nexus that meets the Definition of Done and the Nexus Sprint Goal 1. The purpose of the Nexus Sprint Review is to inspect the Integrated Increment and adapt the Product Backlog based on new learnings 1. Therefore, statement A is correct.

The Nexus Sprint Review replaces individual Scrum Team Sprint Reviews because the focus is on the entire Integrated Increment rather than the work of each team 12. The Nexus Sprint Review is not a container for each individual Scrum Team's Sprint Review, nor is it when individual Scrum Teams demo their work. These statements imply that the Nexus Sprint Review is a collection of separate Sprint Reviews, which is not the case. The Nexus Sprint Review is a single event that involves all the Scrum Teams and stakeholders in the Nexus 12. Therefore, statement B is also correct, and statements C and D are incorrect.

The purpose of Nexus Sprint Retrospective is all of the above, meaning that it aims to:

Plan ways to increase quality and effectiveness across the whole Nexus. The Nexus Sprint Retrospective is a formal opportunity for a Nexus to inspect and adapt itself and create a plan for improvements to be enacted during the next Sprint to ensure continuous improvement 11.

To inspect how the last Sprint went with regards to individuals, teams, interactions, processes, tools, and its Definition of Done. The Nexus Sprint Retrospective follows the same format and principles as the Scrum Team Sprint Retrospective, but at a larger scale. The Nexus inspects the aspects of the product development that affect the Nexus as a whole, such as the collaboration, the integration, the dependencies, the quality, and the value 22.

To complement the Scrum Teams' Sprint Retrospectives by using bottom-up intelligence to focus on issues that affect the Nexus as a whole. The Nexus Sprint Retrospective does not replace the Scrum Teams' Sprint Retrospectives, but rather enhances them by using the input and output from the individual teams to identify and address the shared challenges and opportunities 33.