weekly session flashcards

Front

Situation: Your project manager announces in a meeting that the delivery timeline for your current development project has been cut by 30% based on a promise made to a key client. You know this is technically impossible without compromising quality.

Back

• Express concern privately after the meeting

• Present facts about technical constraints

• Suggest a phased delivery approach for critical features first

• Offer to help create a realistic revised timeline

• Maintain team unity while protecting quality standards

Front

Situation: A business stakeholder keeps adding "small requests" to your requirements document after development has already begun. These changes are beginning to impact your team's ability to deliver core functionality.

Back

• Acknowledge the request's value but highlight timeline impact

• Implement a formal change request process

• Suggest prioritizing what's truly critical now

• Offer to schedule separate planning for new requirements

• Propose a Phase 2 backlog for non-essential additions

• Request stakeholder help in deciding what to deprioritize

Front

Situation: Your team's delivery timeline depends on deliverables from another department that consistently misses deadlines. You need to address this without creating interdepartmental tension.

Back

• Invite key stakeholders to align on shared project objectives

• Establish clear delivery milestones with joint ownership

• Create a buffer for critical dependencies in your timeline

• Implement weekly check-ins to identify issues early

• Offer to help remove obstacles they're facing

• Document agreements and use a shared tracking system

Front

Under pressure to meet a release deadline, your manager suggests reducing the normal QA testing cycle by half. As a QA professional, you see significant risks in this approach.

Back

• Present specific quality risks with data from previous releases

• Suggest risk-based testing focusing only on critical paths

• Propose automation to expedite high-priority test cases

• Offer a phased release plan with post-deployment monitoring

• Document all testing exceptions for stakeholder sign-off

Front

Situation: Minutes before an important demo to executives, you discover a critical feature isn't working properly. There's no time to fix it before the presentation begins.

Back

• Addressing the issue upfront before it's discovered
• Specifying "90% of features ready" to establish context
• Noting the team is "actively addressing" the problem

• Focusing on the "core user journey" that is working properly

• Promising to showcase the missing feature "next week" • Referencing "quality standards" as the reason for the delay

Front

Situation: A bug has made it into production, impacting customers. Initial investigations suggest it came from code your team wrote, but you're not yet certain of the root cause.

Back

• Current Status: Response team activated and investigation in progress

• Actions Taken: Implemented initial stabilization measures

• Next Steps: Three investigation paths: code review, error pattern analysis, environment comparison

• Focus on resolution first, root cause analysis to follow

Front

Situation: Your QA team consistently faces environment stability issues that delay testing, but IT operations insists the environment meets specifications.

Back

• Document specific environment stability patterns affecting delivery timelines

• Propose clear success criteria for environment performance

• Suggest shared ownership model between QA and Operations

• Identify gaps between documented specifications and actual testing needs

Front

Situation: You're a BA who has received extremely vague requirements from a key stakeholder who is now unavailable for clarification. Development needs to start immediately.

Back

• Create a decision matrix with potential interpretations

• Consult similar past projects for precedent

• Seek approval from a designated backup stakeholder

• Prioritize functionality that aligns with clear requirements

• Schedule a review session, when stakeholder returns

• Document all decisions with rationale for future reference

Front

Situation: You believe strongly that the current technical approach to a new feature is flawed, but the senior architect disagrees and has more experience than you.

Back

• Present specific technical risks with current approach

• Support concerns with relevant data and examples

• Frame discussion in terms of project success metrics

• Propose collaborative evaluation of both approaches

• Remain open to hybrid solutions

Front

Situation: As a technical lead, you've noticed that a team member's code quality and productivity have declined significantly in recent sprints, impacting team velocity.

Back

• Gather concrete data on performance decline

• Conduct supportive one-on-one focused on listening

• Identify root causes together

• Create personalized improvement plan