ORG-13
Cross-Squad Collaboration Without Sharing Scope
Org Capacity
Default severity: medium
ProcessOutputRiskEffort
What it detects
dedicated people in different squads share multiple issues; tests; catalogue.
Detection formula
No published identification formula is available yet for this rule.Examples in practice
- Roster FTE, sharing scope, or team mapping disagrees with observed assignments and worklogs.
- A squad or tribe commitment exceeds configured capacity, or a person works outside declared sharing.
- A team shows dedicated people in different squads share multiple issues; tests; catalogue during analysis.
Suggested response
Reconcile roster FTE, sharing scope, and observed work so capacity matches how people actually deliver.
Coaching playbook
Symptom
The "Cross-Squad Collaboration Without Sharing Scope" signal shows a repeatable delivery anti-pattern on the cited issues.
Why it matters
When "Cross-Squad Collaboration Without Sharing Scope" keeps appearing, the team is signalling a repeatable process gap. Left unexamined, the pattern hides where work really stalls and makes improvement metrics harder to trust.
What you can achieve
Reconcile roster FTE, sharing scope, and observed work so capacity matches how people actually deliver.
Facilitation questions
- What system change would stop "Cross-Squad Collaboration Without Sharing Scope" from firing again?
- What do the cited issues have in common — same root cause or same workaround?
- Who owns the two-week experiment and how will we verify on the next import?
Run this rule against your own tracker data with Flow Analyzer.