Instructions: Do not combine topics. Answer each letter separately. All answers must be at least five (5) sentences. Label each answer individually. Include any references.
“Coach as Conflict Navigator ” Please respond to the following:
- A) Read quick study, “Team Issues” located below. Next, read the mini-case titled, “Handling Conflict on Agile Teams” located below “Team Issues”. Describe two (2) conflicts that you have observed in your current or previous place of employment. Determine the level of these conflicts, and suggest two (2) actions that an agile coach should take in response to these conflicts.
- B) Suggest three (3) actions that an agile coach can take in order to avoid misunderstanding buildup among team members. Include at least two (2) examples to justify your response.
2) “Strategy Methodology” Please respond to the following:
- A) Analyze the impact of economic factors on the development of IT strategy decisions at the enterprise level of the organization.
- B) Review IT strategy methodology attached separately. Explain how the IT strategy methodology can be developed to minimize economic factors. Justify your answer.
“Economic Factors” Please respond to the following:
- A) Reflect upon the economic factors that would lead a CIO to consider outsourcing or offshoring critical IT segments (i.e., help desk support, software development, and quality assurance) as a viable option for an organization. Analyze three economic factors that could lead the CIO down the path of outsourcing or offshoring.
- B) Assess whether or not economic factors lead to the same level of IT outsourcing or offshoring decisions, despite the business or industry. Explain your answer.
Who Deals With Team Issues?
So, when you have team issues, first the team deals with the team. Right? So if you have team members who are not playing well with each other, first you give each other feedback. So, if you have team members who are not checking in their code all the time, each person on the team who is affected by that team member gives that team member feedback. Right? So if John is not checking in his code, and I’m affected by John, I say, “John, when you don’t check in your code every day, it hurts me in this way. Please check in your code.” If John does not change his behavior, then I somehow talk to other team members. I work with the team. If that still doesn’t change his behavior, then I have to go to the manager because we still have managers in Agile. And then I ask for help.
Now, I want to ask for help from the manager only when I have not been successful at resolving this, and the kinds of help I ask from the manager is first in the form of coaching. Can I do anything about my relationship with John–can I get some coaching first? But if I’m having trouble with John, and other team members are also having trouble with John, maybe it’s time for the manager to take some action about John. Right? If John is not working as a team member on the team, it’s time for us to vote John off the island.
This is not a good thing for the team, but it’s better than having John not participate on the team. If you have people who are not participating as a full member of the Agile team, we have to get them off the team because he’s dragging us down. He’s not helping us. And this is where the manager and the manager’s authority is what’s necessary. So the manager has to take action, and this is where the manager comes into play. So, if a manager does nothing else, the manager can remove John from the team and then take whatever action to move John, possibly, out of the organization, but at least get John off the team.
Minicase: Handling Conflict on Agile Teams
Marissa Davisson sighed as she walked down the hall. “Well, that didn’t go well.”
A few months ago, Davisson had become an Agile project manager at Steelhead Biotechnologies, a laboratory instrument developer in Portland, Oregon, and this was the first significant challenge she had faced. Davisson was part of a team responsible for upgrading one of Steelhead’s microplate readers, and the team had just finished its second iteration earlier in the week.
Talia Adams, one of her team members, had come to Davisson’s office yesterday with a complaint about another team member, Leanne Moravian.
Adams said that Moravian wasn’t “pulling her weight” and that she took only the easiest tasks from the task list and left the tougher ones for other team members.
“Can you meet with Moravian to fix the matter?” Adams asked. “I mean, it will sink in if it’s coming from you.”
Davisson agreed to address the matter with Moravian and she arranged a meeting later in the day. “I will tell Leanne that you’ve raised the issue,” Davisson said. “So it may be awkward between the two of you.”
“That’s OK,” Adams said. “As long as you get the problem fixed, I can deal with Leanne not being happy with me.”
But when Davisson explained that Adams had complained about Moravian’s behavior, Moravian had looked stunned, then became angry.
“I’m doing more work than she is!” Moravian said. “The tasks I volunteer to do might look easy on paper, but every one of them takes three times longer than anything Adams chooses. Talia grabs the shorter tasks so she can make it look like she’s doing more work! But her work is no more technically difficult than mine.”
When Davisson went back to Adams’ work station to explain Moravian’s reply, Adams shook her head. “That’s not true” she said. “Just compare the complexity level of the work involved; anyone can see that she’s taking the easier tasks. She’s pointing the finger at me so that you don’t take a close look at how she’s been manipulating the situation.”
Now, Davisson had two angry team members and found herself caught in the middle of their conflict. She headed back to her office to plan her next steps.