Lead-service-line inventory field crews have the skills to deliver a slice of value but are organized as a component “GIS-only” group. What should the SM/TC address before celebrating a method choice?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Calling the GIS-only crew 'Kanban' does not let them finish a lead-line inventory slice if the rest of the skills sit on another floor. Method is a steering wheel; a component silo is still a locked garage. Build a team that can deliver first.
Full Explanation
When a GIS-only component crew cannot finish a lead-line inventory slice because needed skills sit elsewhere, the SM/TC should form a cross-functional team that can actually deliver; method choice cannot fix a component silo. Calling the crew "Kanban" does not create missing capabilities. Structure for end-to-end value comes before arguing Scrum versus Kanban labels.
Picking Kanban first because method choice will dissolve the component silo fails because boards do not create cross-functional capacity. Keeping the GIS-only structure and measuring utilization of mapping specialists fails because utilization of a silo still cannot deliver a complete slice. Waiting for the RTE to reorganize the ART before coaching any team-level flow fails because team composition coaching can start locally even while ART design evolves.
Exam caveat: method fit matters after the team can produce Done increments; silos are a design problem first. Operational check: identify skills required for a thin lead-line inventory slice, staff or collaborate for a cross-functional team, stop treating Kanban as a silo cure, and verify the team can finish slices without waiting on external component handoffs for every increment.