@forwardimpact/map 0.11.0

package/examples/questions/behaviours/precise_communication.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
+
+professionalQuestions:
+  emerging:
+    - id: comm_pro_emerg_1
+      text:
+        A product manager asks you to explain why a feature will take longer
+        than expected. They need to update the client by end of day.
+      context:
+        The delay is caused by an unexpected API limitation in a third-party
+        service. The PM has no technical background but is under pressure from
+        the client. You've been working on this for 2 days and just discovered
+        the blocker.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you explain the technical blocker to the PM?
+        - What information do they need vs what details can you leave out?
+        - How would you frame the timeline impact clearly?
+        - How would you write this up if they asked for a brief email summary?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Communicates basic technical concepts in accessible language
+        - Adapts level of detail for the audience
+        - Provides clear timeline impact without overwhelming with detail
+        - Shows willingness to communicate proactively
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  developing:
+    - id: comm_pro_dev_1
+      text:
+        You need to write a specification for a feature that will be partially
+        implemented by an AI coding tool. The feature involves complex business
+        rules.
+      context:
+        The feature calculates tiered pricing based on customer segment, volume,
+        and contract terms. Previous attempts to use AI for similar features
+        resulted in subtle logic errors because the specs were ambiguous. Your
+        team relies on AI tools for ~40% of implementation.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you structure the specification to minimize ambiguity?
+        - What's the difference between a spec humans can follow and one AI can
+          follow?
+        - How would you verify the AI interpreted your spec correctly?
+        - Walk me through how you'd document one of the pricing rules
+      lookingFor:
+        - Writes clear specifications that reduce ambiguity
+        - Considers how AI tools parse requirements differently than humans
+        - Crafts effective prompts and specifications for AI consumption
+        - Adapts communication style for different audiences
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  practicing:
+    - id: comm_pro_pract_1
+      text:
+        You need to present a proposed architecture change to a room with the
+        CTO, product managers, and frontend engineers. Each group cares about
+        different aspects.
+      context:
+        The change migrates from a monolith to microservices for the payments
+        domain. The CTO cares about strategic alignment, PMs care about feature
+        velocity impact, and engineers care about implementation details. You
+        have 30 minutes and expect pushback from PMs about the 6-week
+        productivity dip.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you structure the presentation for this mixed audience?
+        - How do you translate between technical and business language?
+        - How do you handle questions from stakeholders with conflicting
+          priorities?
+        - How do you separate what needs deciding now vs what can be decided
+          later?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Separates concerns precisely for different audiences
+        - Translates between technical and business language fluently
+        - Facilitates productive discussion among stakeholders with competing
+          priorities
+        - Enables clear decisions by structuring information precisely
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  role_modeling:
+    - id: comm_pro_role_1
+      text:
+        Your function has recurring miscommunication between engineering and
+        product. Requirements are interpreted differently, leading to rework.
+      context:
+        In the last quarter, 3 major features needed significant rework due to
+        specification ambiguity. Engineers blame vague requirements. Product
+        managers blame engineers for not asking clarifying questions. You've
+        been asked to propose a better process. The function has 40 engineers
+        and 8 product managers.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - What's the root cause of the miscommunication pattern?
+        - What spec-driven practices would you introduce?
+        - How do you get buy-in from both engineering and product?
+        - How do you mentor others on precise communication without being
+          prescriptive?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Creates spec-driven development practices that reduce ambiguity
+        - Mentors others on precise communication across the function
+        - Bridges communication gaps between engineering and product
+        - Drives clarity as a core value, not just a process
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  exemplifying:
+    - id: comm_pro_exemp_1
+      text:
+        The organisation wants to adopt spec-driven AI development but has no
+        standards for how specifications should be written across teams.
+      context:
+        Teams use different formats, levels of detail, and terminology. AI tool
+        effectiveness varies wildly between teams. External clients are starting
+        to ask about the company's AI development methodology for compliance
+        purposes. You've been asked to lead the standardization effort.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you define organizational communication standards?
+        - How do you balance standardization with team autonomy?
+        - How would you represent this externally to clients and industry?
+        - How would you measure whether communication precision is improving?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Shapes organizational standards for technical communication
+        - Defines spec-driven AI development practices at scale
+        - Represents the organization's approach externally with authority
+        - Creates standards that improve outcomes, not just compliance
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+      followUps:
+        - How would you handle teams that resist the standardization?
+
+managementQuestions:
+  emerging:
+    - id: comm_mgmt_emerg_1
+      text:
+        You notice that standup updates from your team are vague — "still
+        working on it" with no specifics. Sprint planning decisions are being
+        made on incomplete information.
+      context:
+        Your team of 6 engineers has been together for 3 months. Some members
+        are quiet and uncomfortable speaking in groups. Others give detailed
+        updates but talk for too long. The standups regularly run over 15
+        minutes.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you improve the quality of standup communication?
+        - How do you coach a quiet team member to share more effectively?
+        - How do you coach a verbose team member to be more concise?
+        - What structure or format would you introduce?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Identifies communication gaps affecting team effectiveness
+        - Coaches individuals on clear, concise communication
+        - Creates structures that support better communication
+        - Shows awareness of different communication styles
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  developing:
+    - id: comm_mgmt_dev_1
+      text:
+        A team member's pull request descriptions are consistently unclear,
+        causing reviewers to misunderstand the intent and approve problematic
+        changes.
+      context:
+        Two bugs in the last month were traced back to PRs where the reviewer
+        didn't understand the full scope of the change. The team member is
+        technically strong but their written communication is ambiguous. Other
+        team members are reluctant to review their PRs.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you give feedback on their communication without undermining
+          their technical confidence?
+        - What would you suggest as a PR description standard?
+        - How do you make clear communication a team expectation, not just an
+          individual issue?
+        - How do you verify the coaching is working?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Provides constructive feedback on communication skills
+        - Sets clear communication expectations for the team
+        - Coaches without undermining technical confidence
+        - Makes communication quality a team norm
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  practicing:
+    - id: comm_mgmt_pract_1
+      text:
+        Your team needs to communicate a breaking API change to 5 consuming
+        teams. Past breaking changes caused friction because of poor
+        communication timing and unclear migration guides.
+      context:
+        The API change removes deprecated endpoints used by at least 3 teams.
+        Your team wants to ship in 4 weeks. Previous breaking changes led to
+        angry messages in Slack and escalations. You need to manage both the
+        technical communication and the stakeholder relationships.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you structure the communication plan?
+        - How do you help your team communicate effectively with each consuming
+          team?
+        - What communication standards would you establish for breaking changes?
+        - How do you handle a team that doesn't respond to the migration
+          timeline?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Establishes communication standards for high-impact changes
+        - Coaches team members on stakeholder communication
+        - Creates communication practices that become team norms
+        - Manages multi-stakeholder communication proactively
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  role_modeling:
+    - id: comm_mgmt_role_1
+      text:
+        Cross-functional meetings in your area are unproductive — engineers and
+        product managers talk past each other, decisions aren't captured, and
+        actions are unclear.
+      context:
+        You manage 3 teams and participate in weekly cross-functional meetings
+        with product, design, and engineering. The meetings often end without
+        clear decisions. Product managers feel engineers don't listen to
+        business context; engineers feel product doesn't understand technical
+        constraints.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you model precise communication in these meetings?
+        - What facilitation practices would you introduce?
+        - How do you establish shared language between engineering and product?
+        - How do you make your communication standards visible to peers?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Models precise communication in leadership settings
+        - Establishes facilitation practices that drive clarity
+        - Creates shared language across functions
+        - Drives communication as a core value, not just a skill
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  exemplifying:
+    - id: comm_mgmt_exemp_1
+      text:
+        You've been asked to develop strategic communication capabilities across
+        your organization to support AI-driven development practices.
+      context:
+        Your organization has 100+ engineers across 15 teams. AI tools are being
+        adopted but spec quality varies wildly. Customer-facing communication
+        about AI capabilities is inconsistent. The CEO wants the organization to
+        be known for communication excellence.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you develop strategic communication capabilities at scale?
+        - How do you handle communication breakdowns between teams as an
+          organizational pattern?
+        - How do you build communication excellence into hiring and development?
+        - How do you balance transparency with appropriate information
+          boundaries?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Develops organizational communication strategy
+        - Addresses communication patterns systemically, not individually
+        - Builds communication excellence into talent development
+        - Shows strategic judgment about communication at enterprise scale
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+      followUps:
+        - How would you measure communication effectiveness across the
+          organization?

package/examples/questions/behaviours/relentless_curiosity.yaml

@@ -0,0 +1,248 @@
+# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
+
+professionalQuestions:
+  emerging:
+    - id: cur_pro_emerg_1
+      text:
+        You've been assigned to fix a bug in a service you've never worked on.
+        The fix is straightforward but you don't understand why the code is
+        structured the way it is.
+      context:
+        The service handles payment reconciliation. The bug is a simple
+        off-by-one error in a date filter. The codebase uses patterns you
+        haven't seen before — event sourcing with a custom projection layer.
+        Your team lead said "just fix the bug and move on."
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - Would you just fix the bug or try to understand the broader system?
+        - What questions would you ask about the codebase?
+        - How would you decide how deep to go given you were told to move on?
+        - What would you do if you found something else that looked wrong while
+          investigating?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Shows curiosity beyond the immediate task
+        - Asks meaningful questions about why, not just what
+        - Willing to explore unfamiliar territory
+        - Balances curiosity with practical delivery
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  developing:
+    - id: cur_pro_dev_1
+      text:
+        Your team's CI pipeline takes 45 minutes. Everyone accepts it as normal.
+        You suspect it could be much faster but nobody has investigated.
+      context:
+        The pipeline runs unit tests, integration tests, and two rounds of
+        linting. It was set up 2 years ago and has been added to but never
+        optimized. When you mentioned it might be slow, a senior engineer said
+        "it's fine, we're used to it." You have no pipeline expertise.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you investigate this despite not being a CI expert?
+        - What would your first experiment be?
+        - How would you approach learning about pipeline optimization?
+        - How do you handle the pushback from the senior engineer who thinks
+          it's fine?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Investigates root causes independently
+        - Experiments with unfamiliar technology without fear of failure
+        - Seeks to understand how things work rather than accepting the status
+          quo
+        - Shows self-directed exploration patterns
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  practicing:
+    - id: cur_pro_pract_1
+      text:
+        A new AI coding tool claims to reduce development time by 50%. Your
+        company is considering adopting it but wants someone to evaluate it
+        thoroughly.
+      context:
+        The tool is a code generation agent that can handle entire user stories.
+        Marketing materials are impressive but vague on limitations. Your
+        company has 60 engineers. You've been given 2 weeks to evaluate it and
+        make a recommendation. No one on your team has used AI agents beyond
+        basic copilot tools.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you design your evaluation? What would you test?
+        - How do you separate marketing claims from reality?
+        - What failure modes would you specifically look for?
+        - How would you structure your findings to help the organization decide?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Systematic approach to investigating new technology
+        - Treats the evaluation as discovery, not confirmation
+        - Protects time for thorough exploration
+        - Discovers requirements through immersion in the problem space
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  role_modeling:
+    - id: cur_pro_role_1
+      text:
+        Your team consistently delivers features on time but rarely questions
+        whether they're building the right things. Product requirements are
+        accepted at face value.
+      context:
+        Over the last 6 months, 2 features were shipped and then unused because
+        the underlying assumptions were wrong. The team is highly skilled at
+        execution but doesn't push back on requirements or explore the problem
+        space. When you've asked "why are we building this?" in planning, you
+        get polite but empty answers.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you shift the team culture toward questioning and discovery?
+        - How do you model curiosity without slowing delivery?
+        - What specific practices would you introduce?
+        - How do you create safety for engineers to challenge assumptions?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Drives curiosity through challenging questions
+        - Creates environments where exploration is encouraged
+        - Models problem discovery orientation
+        - Seeks out ambiguity rather than avoiding it
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  exemplifying:
+    - id: cur_pro_exemp_1
+      text:
+        Your organization wants to become "AI-native" but most teams treat AI
+        tools as autocomplete. There's no culture of experimentation with new AI
+        capabilities.
+      context:
+        The company has 200+ engineers. AI tool licenses are available to
+        everyone but usage data shows 80% of usage is basic code completion.
+        Only 3 teams have experimented with AI agents. The CTO has asked you to
+        lead a transformation toward deeper AI integration. Budget is available
+        but cultural resistance is strong.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you create a culture of experimentation at organizational
+          scale?
+        - How do you sponsor initiatives that might fail?
+        - How do you influence engineers who are skeptical or intimidated by AI?
+        - How would you share learnings across 200+ engineers effectively?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Shapes organizational culture around curiosity and learning
+        - Sponsors experimental initiatives across the organization
+        - Recognized as a thought leader in problem discovery
+        - Influences practices around innovation and exploration
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+      followUps:
+        - How would you measure whether the organization is becoming more
+          curious?
+
+managementQuestions:
+  emerging:
+    - id: cur_mgmt_emerg_1
+      text:
+        A team member asks if they can spend a day investigating a new database
+        technology. Your sprint is fully committed and you're behind by 2 story
+        points.
+      context:
+        The team member is your most productive engineer. The database
+        technology could solve a scaling problem you'll face in 3 months. You've
+        never managed competing priorities between exploration and delivery
+        before. Your manager tracks sprint velocity closely.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you decide whether to approve the exploration time?
+        - How would you frame this to your manager?
+        - What boundaries would you set on the exploration?
+        - How do you make this a learning opportunity regardless of the outcome?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Supports team learning and exploration
+        - Shows awareness of balancing curiosity with delivery
+        - Creates space for investigation even under pressure
+        - Treats learning as valuable, not wasteful
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  developing:
+    - id: cur_mgmt_dev_1
+      text:
+        You notice your team only learns reactively — they pick up new skills
+        when forced by a project requirement but never explore proactively.
+      context:
+        The team of 7 engineers is competent and delivers well. But when a
+        project required Kubernetes knowledge, nobody had it and the team
+        scrambled. This has happened 3 times in the past year. Engineers say
+        they'd love to learn but "there's never time."
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How would you create structured opportunities for exploration?
+        - How do you make learning feel safe, not like extra work?
+        - What would you do if an exploration produces no tangible outcome?
+        - How do you balance your delivery commitments with learning time?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Creates time and space for exploration
+        - Balances delivery with learning proactively
+        - Encourages experimentation without fear of failure
+        - Makes curiosity part of the team's rhythm, not an exception
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  practicing:
+    - id: cur_mgmt_pract_1
+      text:
+        Two of your teams have different approaches to adopting new technology.
+        One team experiments constantly but ships slowly. The other never
+        experiments but delivers predictably.
+      context:
+        You manage both teams. The experimental team has found valuable
+        innovations but missed deadlines 3 times. The predictable team delivers
+        on time but their tech stack is becoming outdated. Leadership is
+        starting to question the experimental team's reliability.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you calibrate the right level of exploration for each team?
+        - What would you take from each team's culture to improve the other?
+        - How do you protect the experimental team from leadership pressure?
+        - How do you encourage the predictable team to question their
+          assumptions?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Builds team culture that values questioning assumptions
+        - Calibrates exploration against delivery needs
+        - Protects space for curiosity while maintaining accountability
+        - Creates sustainable patterns for experimentation
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  role_modeling:
+    - id: cur_mgmt_role_1
+      text:
+        Your engineering function is solving the same problems repeatedly across
+        teams because there's no culture of sharing discoveries or asking "has
+        anyone solved this before?"
+      context:
+        You lead 3 teams with 25 engineers total. In the last quarter, two teams
+        independently built similar caching solutions. Another team
+        re-investigated a technology that was evaluated and rejected 6 months
+        ago. Engineers are curious individually but there's no collective
+        curiosity.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - How do you create collective curiosity, not just individual curiosity?
+        - What structures would you put in place for sharing discoveries?
+        - How do you model curiosity visibly as a leader?
+        - How do you make "has anyone solved this?" the first question, not the
+          last?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Models curiosity visibly in leadership
+        - Creates environments where discoveries are shared
+        - Builds collective inquiry practices
+        - Drives curiosity as a cultural value across teams
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+
+  exemplifying:
+    - id: cur_mgmt_exemp_1
+      text:
+        The organization wants to launch an internal innovation program but
+        previous attempts failed because they felt disconnected from real work.
+      context:
+        Two previous "hack week" programs were cancelled after low
+        participation. Engineers felt the initiatives were performative — good
+        ideas went nowhere after the event. Leadership still believes in the
+        concept but wants a different approach. You've been asked to design
+        something that creates genuine, sustainable curiosity.
+      simulationPrompts:
+        - Why did previous programs fail and how would yours be different?
+        - How do you build organizational systems that reward genuine curiosity?
+        - How do you ensure discoveries from the program feed back into real
+          work?
+        - How do you coach other managers to foster curiosity in their teams?
+      lookingFor:
+        - Builds organizational systems that reward curiosity
+        - Creates sustainable exploration programs, not performative ones
+        - Coaches other managers on fostering curiosity
+        - Balances predictable delivery with organizational learning
+      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
+      followUps:
+        - How do you handle the inevitable pushback from delivery-focused
+          managers?