Dear Sir/Mam

Greetings!! Hope you are doing great!!

 I have 9+ Year Experience Designing in eBook CreateSpace/ePub/Kindle Mobi/Fixed Layout Conversion.
 I can deliver good product on time. I can work from any Kind of source (Microsoft Word, PDF, InDesign, Quark, Pagemaker, etc).
 I always test files in iPad/Kindle/Nook before sending. I can deliver project on time with quality and till now we have done 5000+ ebook.
 I also do it Amazon Kindle MOBI eBook Project, I will give you this format files.

• Mobi Kindle for (KDP Amazon) --- Final file will be tested on iPad/KindleFire Device.
  Estimate conversion time 1-2 days




• We had a good experience team around 20 members




• Please See My Sample file .
  https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nyvbh8dr4fduflm/AABBiTXQEd2MyC7jRu9qutAYa?dl=0

SERVICES:-
1) Quick Turnaround.
2) Unlimited Revisions.
3) Quick Response and Communication.
4) Follow Deadline and Requirements.
5) 100% Satisfaction Assured.
6) Final file will be tested on iPad/KindleFire Device.

• Please give one chance to work with you & let me know if you have any doubts or questions.

Please contact to my email address.
Looking forward to your reply.
Have a nice day!...-:)
Kind Regards,
Ravi Gaur
Delhi, India
ibookconversion@gmail.com

--------------------------LIVE Book Sample links--------------
Some links to the books we worked on (in most situations designing the print version and transferring them to Kindle and EPUB).

1***Winning Poker Tournaments One Hand at a Time Volume III
http://goo.gl/3LMHl3

2***Change Your Mind: 10 Unconventional Secrets to Retrain Your Brain
http://goo.gl/EvyMDL

3***Fearless Fliers: An Izzie and Ollie Adventure
http://goo.gl/MmPaVS

4***The Perfect Weight Loss Solution
http://goo.gl/KrohD6

5***The New Green Smoothie Diet: Going Green Never Tasted So Good
http://goo.gl/kdGuQ4

6***The Math of Hold'em
http://goo.gl/DyiLN7

7***Advanced Pot-Limit Omaha: Small Ball and Short-Handed Play
http://goo.gl/mCzqAs

etc…….

First let me be clear, I'm not a fan of #NoEstimates. I see a lot of value in teams Estimating product backlog items. When size comes into play, they will find they do not all have the same perspective on the scope and complexity of the product backlog item.

However often teams are not comfortable providing estimates because other parts of the organization are considering them as given planning.

The word estimates has a historic meaning in waterfall projects, and is part of project management methods like Prince2 and PMI. Historically it is considered something you can and should get better at.

In Scrum teams invest just enough time in PBI's during Baclog Refinement to understand size and complexity and make sure the have the same understanding of scope. The outcome is not an estimate with a 10% margin of error, but more like 50%.

Therefore I propose to change the word estimate to size, since it does not have the historical meaning and at the same time isn't considered very accurate.

Clarify what the primary function of the Product Owner role is to avoid unconscious proxies

Clarify: "The Product Owner is responsible for maximizing the value of the product and the work of the Development Team."

This sentence appears to skim over the primary function of the PO role in six words combined with a secondary, more tactical concern that mixes messages.

Suggest: "The Product Owner is a business decision making role responsible for maximizing the value of the product being developed using Scrum. At a tactical level, the Product Owner may seek to maximise the value of the Development Team's work on a Sprint-to-Sprint basis, but not at the expense of optimising the value of the overall product."

Rationale:
Interpretations of the Product Owner role vary widely and these varied interpretations have become more stark and codified over the last few years.

Interpretation A: the PO role is primarily a commercial decision maker who takes responsibility for maximising ROI of the product overall. This involves deciding the content of the product and the timing of its release. Given interpretation A, it is common for the business person with the greatest stake in the product/initiative to play the PO role and delegate detailed clarification work to the development team and business people closest to the relevant detail.

When more than one development team is developing a product interpretation A suggests that there be one overall PO for one overall product.

Interpretation B: the Product Owner role is primarily an analyst who leads the refinement of backlog for a single team and orders the team's refined backlog (often within the context of an set of priorities previously agreed with stakeholders).

Where more than one development team is developing a product, interpretation B suggests that there is a PO per team and decisions across the product as a whole are made by other means (often by means outside of the Scrum implementation). Given interpretation B in an internal IT systems development environment it is common for Business Analysts from the IT department to be appointed PO's and handle most or all of the detailed clarification themselves.

Interpretation B typically results in a proxy/fake Product Owner rather than a decision maker with genuine authority. Whilst a good deal has been written about this issue elsewhere (e.g. https://kenschwaber.wordpress.com/2011/01/31/product-owners-not-proxies/ ) the Scrum Guide says little to explicitly discourage this interpretation.

In a multi-team context, multiple individuals optimising their own team backlogs is likely to result in local optimisations at the expense of optimising the whole product (see Systems Thinking) unless this is performed whilst considering the whole.

Last paragraph of section "Sprint Retrospective" says: "By the end of the Sprint Retrospective, the Scrum Team should have identified improvements that it will implement in the next Sprint."

Change to: "By the end of the Sprint Retrospective, the Scrum Team should have identified improvements that it will implement in the next Sprint. Improvements should be added to the Sprint Backlog"

And

the first paragraph of section “Product Backlog” says: “The Sprint Backlog is the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint, plus a plan for delivering the product Increment and realizing the Sprint Goal.

Change to: “The Sprint Backlog is the set of Product Backlog items selected for the Sprint, identified improvements selected during Retrospective, plus a plan for delivering the product Increment and realizing the Sprint Goal.

And

adding “Review progress in the identified improvements selected during Retrospective” position to the “The Sprint Review includes the following elements:” list.

Rationale for the change: Treating improvements identified during retrospective as ordinary sprint backlog items, raises the inspect & adapt, the pilars of SCRUM framework, to a higher level. During sprint review team not only can inspect & adapt in terms of a product delivery but also can inspect & adapt in terms of the process of inspecting and adapting as such. Discussing improvements as any other items gives a chance for formal discussion about continuous improvement process.

The SM must work on impediments, helping the team become more productive and more happy, etc. The SM needs a list of the top X (20?) things that he/she needs to work on.
This will lead to greater focus on removing impediments, and greater success.
How can you build a product without a Prod Bklog (list)? How can you have continuous improvement without an Impediment List?

Everything that can be improved (in any way) might go on the list. (There are many types of impediments.) In theory that could be lots of things (just as the PB could also be endless)...in practice we only track the Top X things.
The goal: more success with Scrum. How? By prioritizing the impediments better, and more actively seeing and fixing them.

Perhaps we should add that the whole team must prioritize the impediments (business-side ones vs tech ones vs org ones, etc, etc.).

Last paragraph of section "Topic One: What can be done this Sprint?" says: "After the Development Team forecasts the Product Backlog items it will deliver in the Sprint, the Scrum Team crafts a Sprint Goal. "

Change to: "During Sprint Planning, the Scrum Team also crafts a Sprint Goal."

Rationale for the change: No need to prescribe that the goal should be set AFTER deciding which PBIs to deliver. In many cases it will make sense to set the goal first, and then decide which PBIs make sense to achieve that goal. And that's even implied at the beginning of the section

Usually the Daily Scrum meeting is held around the beginning of the day, but that's not a rule, and in many cases (because of time zones) it is not even true.

The Scrum Guide doesn't state that when the Daily Scrum should be done, it only suggests to have it in the same time (and place) every day: "The Daily Scrum is held at the same time and place each day to reduce complexity."

Then, right after this, the 3 questions (I'm quoting the first 2) are mentioned:
"What did I do yesterday that helped the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal?"
"What will I do today to help the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal?"

I have a "problem" with "yesterday" and "today". This indirectly means that the Daily Scrum is in the morning, the first thing in the day. That's not appropriate. I'd like to change it to this:
"What did I do since the last Daily Scrum that helped the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal?"
"What will I do until the next Daily Scrum to help the Development Team meet the Sprint Goal?"

One of my Scrum Master mentors, or some Scrum article from the distant past recommended this 4th Daily Scrum question (that I now always use):

Did I discover any requirements (new or existing) that the Scrum Team should be made aware of?

Sometimes a developer may realize when looking at a particular item in the Sprint Backlog that they could knock off another item in the Product Backlog that is not in the Sprint if they spent an incrementally small amount of additional time. There is a natural tendency to not want to mention it because of perceived (and real) Sprint schedule pressure. I call this 'Toilet Paper tube thinking'.

It is entirely possible that the extra item could be done within the current Sprint with no changes to the Sprint just because it is such a small amount of extra work.

If there were a situation like this, or some new requirement no one had thought of, a quick off-line meeting would ensue. Maybe this new requirement just gets added to the Product Backlog for some future Sprint.