Two school-information teams are each building a guardian-consent feature without talking. What should the Scrum Master / Team Coach promote?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Two consent screens for the same parent is a district that cannot agree who has the clipboard. Notice the duplicate, sit the teams in one discovery, and ship one slice. Silent twin features are not healthy competition.
Full Explanation
When two school-information teams silently build the same guardian-consent feature, the Scrum Master / Team Coach should promote shared discovery so the ART delivers one aligned product slice instead of duplicate resident experiences. Duplicate consent flows confuse guardians, waste district capacity, and create conflicting policies at go-live. Letting both teams finish so the district can pick a winner institutionalizes waste and forces a political bake-off after money is spent. Hiding the overlap to protect Product Owners from board embarrassment prioritizes face-saving over student and family service. Merging the two Agile Teams overnight to make duplication impossible is a structural blunt instrument that may destroy unrelated focus areas and skips the lighter collaboration fix of joint discovery and backlog alignment. Exam caveat: SASM favors early cross-team discovery and alignment on overlapping civic product work; it is not "ship both and choose," not concealment, and not automatic team mergers as the first response. Operational check: convene a short shared discovery with both school-information teams and Product Owners, map the overlapping consent journeys, decide a single thin slice and clear ownership or interface, park or rewrite the duplicate stories, and verify guardians see one consent path in the next System Demo. Capture the decision on the ART board so silent twin builds do not restart next iteration.