Lesson 2 taught learners to read a board like a Product Owner. They practiced noticing what most people overlook: how many items sit in progress, how long cards have been open, whether titles are clear, and whether a shared goal is visible. The board was treated as a story about how the team actually works.
Lesson 2.1 shifts the stance from reader to designer. Here, the board becomes something learners can change. As Product Owners, they are responsible for how clearly the board communicates priorities, how honestly it reflects reality, and how effectively it supports flow for the team and value for users.
From Observations to Named Problems
Learners begin by revisiting their Lesson 2 Board Reading Packet: the Board Snapshot, Flow Health Note, Absent Product Owner reflection, and Product Owner’s Narrative. They highlight specific phrases that signal friction, risk, or confusion—too much work-in-progress, ambiguous titles, cards that never move, or missing goals.
Each of these observations is then rewritten as a short, grounded problem statement. For example: “Our board shows fifteen items in progress, which makes it difficult to see what actually matters right now,” or, “There is no visible sprint goal, so the team has no shared target for this iteration.” These statements are anchored in the board, not in opinion.
Learners group their problem statements into two or three themes such as “Too much WIP,” “Unclear priorities,” “No visible goal,” or “Blocked work ignored.” This clustering is a design move. It reveals where a single change might address multiple issues at once.
Designing a Board Intervention Plan
With themes identified, learners build a Board Intervention Plan in three layers. First, they propose specific visual and structural changes to the board itself. They might tighten WIP limits in key columns, introduce a “Today’s Focus” lane, add a “Ready for PO Review” column, or use color to distinguish work types or value streams. Each change is explicitly tied to a problem or theme.
Second, they define Product Owner behaviors and rituals that will keep the board honest over time. This might include a weekly backlog clean-up, posting a clear sprint goal at the top of the board, or writing a daily, one-sentence priority signal such as, “Today’s priority is to finish the onboarding flow before starting new work.” These rituals are small on paper but large in impact.
Third, learners select a small set of value and flow metrics to track. They might measure the percentage of items finished versus started each sprint, average cycle time, or the number of items above the WIP limit. For each metric, they describe how it will be tracked and what improvement would look like. The goal is not perfect data but useful feedback.
Mastery Studio: Presenting the Intervention
The lesson culminates in a mastery studio. Each learner presents a three-to-four minute story that connects their Lesson 2 analysis to their 2.1 intervention. They describe their board’s “before” state, walk through their Board Intervention Plan, and explain the impact they expect on flow, team experience, and user value.
Peers respond using a simple feedback frame: “This felt especially strong as Product Owner thinking because…” and “One way you could deepen this as a PO is…”. The aim is to strengthen the clarity and depth of each plan, not to critique style.
Mastery for Lesson 2p2
A learner demonstrates mastery of Lesson 2.1 when they can read a real board, name specific flow and clarity issues using agile language, design a targeted intervention that addresses those issues, and narrate a clear before-and-after story for stakeholders.
In a single sentence, mastery sounds like: “I can describe what is unhealthy about a board, design and defend a concrete intervention as a Product Owner, and explain how that intervention improves value, clarity, and flow.”