"Technical debt is the sole concern of the development team". As a Scrum Master, do you agree with this statement? Whyor why not?.

As a Scrum Master, I donot agreewith the statement that technical debt is the sole concern of the Development Team. While Developers are responsible for recognizing and understanding technical debt, its impact extends far beyond the team and affectsagility, quality, and deliveryat the product and organizational level.
First, technical debt directly influences a team'sability to remain agile. As technical debt accumulates, the cost and effort required to change the product increase. This slows down development, reduces predictability, and eventually makes it difficult-or even impossible-to deliver working software within reasonable timeframes. When agility is reduced, the entireorganizationsuffers, not just the Development Team.
Second, technical debt has a significant impact onproduct quality and delivery. High levels of technical debt often lead to defects, instability, and integration problems. This undermines the Scrum principle of delivering a "Done" Increment each Sprint. When the product cannot be reliably delivered or inspected, customers and stakeholders are directly affected, making technical debt a shared concern.
Third, while Developers are best positioned toidentify when technical debt occurs, addressing it requires collaboration across the Scrum Team. The Product Owner must understand that not all work in a Sprint will result in new functionality. Investing in reducing technical debt is an investment in future value, sustainability, and delivery capability. Stakeholders also need transparency about this trade-off.
Fourth, Scrum encourages making technical debt visible andaddressing it continuously, rather than postponing it indefinitely. This may involve adding technical debt-related work to the Product Backlog and prioritizing it alongside functional work. Treating technical debt as "invisible" or purely technical undermines empiricism and long-term value creation.

What would be an example of a development team member displaying unethical behaviour?

An example of unethical behaviour by a Development Team member in Scrum isknowingly delivering low- quality or non-secure softwarewhile being aware of the potential negative impact on users, stakeholders, or the organization. Such behaviour contradicts the ethical expectations embedded in Scrum and violates multiple Scrum Values.
For instance, a developer may intentionally ignore known defects, security vulnerabilities, or technical debt in order to finish work faster or appear more productive. Releasing software that is known to be insecure or unstable places end-users at risk and misrepresents the true state of the product. This underminesCommitment to quality andCourage, as the individual avoids addressing difficult issues or raising concerns.
Another unethical example iswithholding important informationfrom the Scrum Team or stakeholders. This may include hiding risks, downplaying impediments, or not being transparent about progress or challenges.
Such behaviour violatesOpennessand damages trust, which is essential for empiricism and effective collaboration.
Unethical behaviour may also be expressed throughfailing to support team members. For example, refusing to help others, dismissing or disrespecting colleagues' opinions, or working in ways that harm team cohesion contradicts the Scrum Value ofRespect. Scrum expects team members to collaborate and support each other in achieving the Sprint Goal.
Finally,going against agreements made by the Scrum Team, such as ignoring the Definition of Done or agreed working agreements, is unethical. This damages accountability and can mislead stakeholders about the quality and completeness of the work.

Describe the difference between feature and component teams, and how they hold up when viewed from the perspective ofthe Scrum Guide.

In Scrum, team structure significantly impacts the ability to deliver value. Two commonly discussed structures arecomponent teamsandfeature teams. Although the Scrum Guide does not explicitly define these terms, it strongly favors the characteristics of feature teams through its definition of a Scrum Team.
Component teamsare organized around technical specialties or system components, such as database, frontend, or middleware teams. Their work typically represents partial contributions to a product feature, requiring coordination and handoffs across multiple teams to deliver customer value. As a result, component teams often introduce dependencies, delay integration, and struggle to produce a usable Increment independently within a Sprint.
Feature teams, in contrast, are organized around delivering complete product features or Product Backlog Items. They are cross-functional and possess all the skills required to design, build, test, and deliver a "Done" Increment of value. Feature teams minimize dependencies and can independently deliver customer-facing functionality each Sprint.
From theScrum Guide perspective, feature teams align more closely with Scrum principles:
* The Scrum Guide states thatScrum Teams are cross-functional, which directly supports feature teams and challenges component team structures.
* Scrum requires each Sprint to produce ausable Increment. Feature teams can meet this expectation, while component teams usually cannot without reliance on other teams.
* Scrum is based onempiricism(transparency, inspection, and adaptation). Reduced dependencies in feature teams improve transparency and enable faster inspection and adaptation.
* Scrum emphasizesvalue delivery and accountability. Feature teams maintain clear ownership of outcomes, whereas component teams fragment accountability across technical silos.
While component teams may exist due to legacy structures or technical constraints, they represent organizational impediments rather than an ideal Scrum implementation. From a Professional Scrum Master III perspective, moving toward feature teams supports agility, improves value delivery, and better enables Scrum as defined in the Scrum Guide.

What is meant by a team or organization practicing 'zombie' or 'mechanical' Scrum?

Practicing'zombie' or 'mechanical' Scrumrefers to an approach where teams and organizations follow the rules and events of Scrum in a superficial manner, merely going through the motions, without embracing the underlying purpose, values, and principles of the framework.
In mechanical Scrum, teams conduct the required events, maintain the prescribed artifacts, and use Scrum terminology, but do sowithout focusing on value, learning, or outcomes. Scrum events become routine meetings rather than opportunities for inspection and adaptation. The Sprint Goal may exist on paper, but it does not meaningfully guide decisions. As a result, Scrum is reduced to a checklist of practices rather than a framework for solving complex problems.
This approach contrasts sharply with practicing"Real" Scrum, which isvalue-driven and goal-oriented.
Real Scrum emphasizes delivering meaningful outcomes for customers and stakeholders, rather than simply completing tasks. Teams focus on achieving the Sprint Goal, maximizing product value, and understanding the impact of their work.
Furthermore, mechanical Scrum often ignores theScrum Values. WithoutCourage, teams avoid difficult conversations; withoutOpenness, problems are hidden; withoutRespect, collaboration suffers; without Commitment and Focus, teams optimize for activity rather than outcomes. This leads to stagnation and missed opportunities for improvement.
In contrast, Real Scrum recognizes that Scrum is aframework, not a rigid methodology. It intentionally leaves room for teams and organizations to discover and adopt additional practices that support empiricism, continuous improvement, and stakeholder satisfaction. These practices are chosen to reinforce Scrum's core values, not to replace them.