The social-services eligibility ART has no one accountable for solution enablers that span several teams. Who should own that collaboration?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Cross-team enablers are the shared plumbing of eligibility—identity, rules, data. They need an architect and Product Management on the hook, not leftover chores. Accidental ownership is how those items never start.
Full Explanation
System Architect/Engineering collaborating with Product Management should own solution enablers that span several teams. When a social-services eligibility ART has no one accountable for those cross-team enablers, identity, rules, and data plumbing drift until stories block. A rotating intern filing enablers as chores after each demo is not accountable ownership. The RTE alone should not write all technical stories because facilitation is not architecture authorship. Individual developers adding enablers only when already blocked creates reactive debt instead of planned runway for eligibility outcomes. Exam caveat: Teams implement enablers, but ART-level ownership of cross-cutting enabler prioritization sits with architecture and Product Management collaboration. Operational check: List cross-team eligibility enablers, assign architect and Product Management owners, and place them on the Program Backlog with capacity before the next PI Planning. In municipal settings, pressure to look busy, compliant, or politically safe is constant; the RTE earns trust by holding the principle through that pressure and verifying the next cadence event shows improved civic delivery, not just a quieter meeting. Capture the before/after signal so sponsors see the operational evidence.