Errata

often times a PDF is included with an audible copy of a book like this because the pictures, specifically the maps, are very important to help with understanding the content.

it's just too tedious for me to fill out the form again and again, please divide it up in individual errata if necessary

p. 24: “The result is often a “Frankenproduct”” => should be “Frankenstein product” (http://de.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=frankenstein%20product)
p. 19: “... But, if feels like I’ve lost the big picture.” -> shouldn’t it be “, it feels”? (felix schwenk)
p.34: “So someone out there isn’t getting the credit they deserve.” => “he or she deserves” (“they” feels wrong)
p. 36: “That’s super hard with just words alone.” => “That’s super hard with just written words alone.” (add “written”)
p.41: “Everything between the idea and the delivery is called output. It’s what we build. People working in Agile software development will deliberately measure velocity of output and try to speed up their rate of output.” => it doesn’t feel right to say that “everything between idea and delivery is called output” when in the next sentence output is the result. Between idea and delivery is the effort and creativity that we put in, the methods, techniques, and tools that we apply at work. “velocity of output” feels wrong as well, rather “velocity of output creation”. Those two paragraphs on page 41 are not easily digestible by the reader. One troubling thing: “people” and “they” are used interchangeably for the customer and the software developer, e.g. in “As people are building software, they are of course concerned about the cost of what they’re doing.” (people = software developers; they = much more the customer who is worrying about the cost than the software developers). “And, we don’t measure outcome in number of features delivered, or what people have the capability to now do.” (we = software developers; people = users)
compare also on p.80: “Replacing the content management system is the output, the stuff they were going to deliver. Doing that would result in lots of positive outcomes. The secret to breaking down that really big chunk of output was to focus on a smaller, specific outcome.” => “output” is described as an activity (“replacing…”), while the quote above defines it as “it’s what we build” and not “it’s the building of something”
p.73: “Seussian animal” => beware of the cultural dependency, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Seussian is not so well known in the rest of the world
p.81: “FORUM Credit Union is one of the nation’s largest and most technologically progressive credit unions” => again a cultural dependency, replace “nations’s” with “in the US”
p.94: “along with delivery task” => “tasks” (it’s more than one)
p.95: “But, he’s purposely built something less than minimal to start with. He’s then adding a bit more every month.” => mix of tenses, the first “he’s” expands to “he has”, the next cannot expand to “has” but to “is”; if the same tense should be used in both sentences, it would have to be “he has then been adding …”; that may be okay, however it’s hard to read to expand “‘s” to “has” and to “is” so nearby
p.99: “it means that what you build early may not be production” => the end sounds awkward, should it be “may not go into production”?
p.99 “large, chain retailers” => “large chain retailers” (no comma)
p.104: “a couple sticky notes” => “of” missing => “a couple of sticky notes”
p.104: “would have never found” => “would never have found”
p.106: “No one cold drive it.” => “No one could drive it.” (“u” missing)
p.116: “Opening-game”, “Mid-game”, “End-game”: why the “-”?
p.139: “risks sooner..”: 2 “..”
p.139: “Andrea Schmieden” wrong font and font size
p.141: “Cover Story” seems to be linked but without effect
p.145: “with lots of team” => “teams”
p.145: “some cool to requirements technique” => “to” is superfluous
p.153: “Conntextra” => “Connextra” (omit the “t” in the middle)
p.156: “And, I also he care’s a lot” => “think” missing? => “And, I also think he care’s a lot”
p.165: “same as the that feature” => “the” too much => “same as that feature”
p.168: “form some hypothesis” => plural ends with “es” => “form some hypotheses”
p.169: “diving into a lots of details” => “a” too much => “diving into lots of details”
p.169: “design useful and usable user interface” => either add “a” or put the interfaces into the plural
p.169: “words in that that heading” => twice “that” => “words in that heading”
p.174: “sorta like the Dewey Decimal system” => “sort of”
p.188: “that we’ve build” => “built”

The two images of Henrik Kniberg's drawing (https://blog.crisp.se/2016/01/25/henrikkniberg/making-sense-of-mvp) are both misrepresented.

The last Stage (#4) of the "Not like this" part of the drawing is a normal smiley face (i.e. not a grinning, super-happy one) and with a hardtop / non-convertible car (not a convertible).

The 4th Stage of the "Like this!" part of the drawing is also a normal smiley (not a grinning one).

Both the above details are important for the point the drawing because:

1. The end result between the 2 ways of developing are not the same

2. The end-customer is not equally as happy in the end, in both cases

3. The customer is happiest only at the last stage of the "Like this!" way of developing (and not also at the previous stage) -- there wouldn't have been a need to further develop anything is this was the case.

But right now it’s not. => But right now he’s not. (...working hard)