A director wants a pass/fail competency audit of the GIS parcel-map team. The Scrum Master / Team Coach has measure-and-grow style questions ready. How should those questions be used?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
A growth check is a coach, not a hanging judge. Measure-and-grow questions help the GIS team see the next skill, not stamp pass or fail on a badge. An audit that grades people as winners and losers just teaches them to hide.
Full Explanation
Measure-and-grow style competency questions for a GIS parcel-map team should help the team grow skills; the Scrum Master / Team Coach must not turn the assessment into a pass/fail audit. Growth-oriented questioning surfaces gaps the team can close together through pairing, training, and deliberate practice on municipal mapping work. Scoring each person pass or fail for the personnel file weaponizes assessment and chills honesty about what people do not yet know. Handing the quiz to the RTE so the whole ART gets a single pass/fail grade elevates a team growth tool into train-level judgment theater. Converting the questions into a work-breakdown dictionary for earned-value scoring drifts into predictive CAPM-style control foreign to SASM team coaching. Exam caveat: SASM competency assessment is for growth, not HR pass/fail audits, ART-wide pass/fail grades, or earned-value dictionaries. Operational check: run the measure-and-grow conversation with the GIS team, identify one or two skill gaps tied to parcel-map outcomes, create pairing or learning actions on the backlog, and revisit growth without assigning pass/fail labels. Keep results team-owned for improvement unless a separate HR process is explicitly required outside Agile assessment, and confirm skill actions actually land in the next iterations.