Two sprints after launch, the county tax-assessment ART erupts over who owns appeal-letter priorities and whether architects may override team estimates. Several people call the ART a failure. How should the RTE read this?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
The first real argument after the kickoff cake is storming, not a funeral. New ARTs fight about who owns what; that is how roles get real. Coach through it instead of declaring the tax-assessment train dead.
Full Explanation
Read role and priority eruptions two sprints after launch on the county tax-assessment ART as expected storming, not instant evidence the ART failed. Storming surfaces conflict over roles, priorities, and authority after the honeymoon. Resetting under a command-and-control program manager avoids facilitation work. Freezing all role discussions until after the next PI Planning postpones the conflict that must be resolved for norms. Skipping ART events until conflict disappears on its own abandons the forums where agreements form. Exam caveat: abusive behavior is not "healthy storming" and still requires intervention; substantive role conflict is the normal pattern here. Operational check: name the stage for the ART, facilitate working agreements on appeal-letter ownership and estimate authority, and keep ART Sync running so assessment services for taxpayers stabilize through coaching, not a funeral declaration. In municipal and civic service contexts, record the rationale in the ART working agreements or improvement backlog so future PIs preserve the control, and re-validate after the next Inspect and Adapt against resident-facing outcomes rather than activity theater. Confirm owners, success measures, and a re-check date so the practice remains inspectable.