@forwardimpact/map 0.11.1 → 0.13.0

package/examples/questions/behaviours/outcome_ownership.yaml

@@ -1,228 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: own_pro_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A feature you built last week is causing intermittent errors in
-        production. Your tech lead is in a meeting and unavailable for an hour.
-      context:
-        The errors affect about 5% of users and the on-call engineer has pinged
-        the team channel. You have access to logs and the deployment pipeline.
-        The feature was built using AI-generated code that you reviewed before
-        merging.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - Walk me through your first steps when you see the alert
-        - How would you decide whether to roll back or investigate further?
-        - Who would you communicate with and what would you say?
-        - How would you document what happened for the team?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Takes immediate responsibility rather than waiting for direction
-        - Shows willingness to act within their capability
-        - Communicates status proactively even without being asked
-        - Understands the feature serves a business purpose beyond code
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: own_pro_dev_1
-      text:
-        You shipped a feature using AI-generated code that passed all tests, but
-        a stakeholder reports it behaves differently than specified.
-      context:
-        The stakeholder is frustrated because they demoed the feature to a
-        client and it didn't work as expected. The AI tool generated a plausible
-        but subtly wrong implementation that your tests didn't catch.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you respond to the stakeholder's frustration?
-        - What do you do to understand the gap between spec and implementation?
-        - How do you decide between a quick patch and a proper fix?
-        - What would you change about your review process going forward?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Takes ownership of the gap rather than blaming the AI tool
-        - Reviews AI-generated code critically against the specification
-        - Makes pragmatic trade-offs between speed and correctness
-        - Considers how to prevent similar gaps in future
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: own_pro_pract_1
-      text:
-        A key integration your team owns is blocking a partner team's quarterly
-        release. The fix requires accepting significant technical debt.
-      context:
-        The partner team's release is worth £2M in annual revenue. A proper fix
-        would take 3 weeks; a pragmatic workaround takes 3 days but leaves known
-        limitations. You own the stakeholder relationship with the partner
-        team's lead.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you evaluate the trade-off between technical debt and business
-          value?
-        - Walk me through the conversation you'd have with the partner team lead
-        - How do you ensure the technical debt is tracked and eventually
-          addressed?
-        - How do you communicate the decision and its consequences to your team?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Owns the end-to-end business outcome, not just the code
-        - Accepts technical debt intentionally with clear reasoning
-        - Manages the stakeholder relationship with transparency
-        - Balances delivery speed with long-term quality
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: own_pro_role_1
-      text:
-        Two teams in your function disagree about who owns a cross-cutting
-        reliability issue. Incidents are recurring and both teams blame the
-        other.
-      context:
-        The issue has caused 3 incidents this month, each impacting customer
-        experience. Neither team has full visibility into the other's service.
-        You are a senior IC with credibility with both teams. Leadership is
-        starting to notice.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you approach the situation without formal authority?
-        - What would you do to establish clear ownership boundaries?
-        - How do you shift the conversation from blame to accountability?
-        - What systemic changes would you propose to prevent this pattern?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Drives accountability culture focused on outcomes not blame
-        - Takes ownership of the problem without formal responsibility
-        - Makes decisions without needing to escalate for permission
-        - Establishes verification rigor for cross-team boundaries
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: own_pro_exemp_1
-      text:
-        The organisation is adopting AI code generation at scale, but there is
-        no accountability framework for AI-generated code quality and outcomes.
-      context:
-        Several teams have shipped AI-generated features with defects not caught
-        in review. Leadership wants velocity but also accountability. You have
-        been asked to define the organizational approach.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you define accountability standards for AI-generated code?
-        - How do you balance velocity gains from AI with outcome ownership?
-        - What organizational structures would you put in place?
-        - How would you measure success of the accountability framework?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Defines organizational accountability standards for the AI era
-        - Shapes practices that scale beyond individual team behaviour
-        - Sponsors initiatives with full outcome accountability
-        - Takes an approach that could influence industry practices
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you handle a team that resists the framework?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: own_mgmt_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A team member's task is overdue and they haven't raised it. You discover
-        this during standup where they say everything is "on track."
-      context:
-        The task was due yesterday and blocks another team member's work. The
-        team member is relatively new and you suspect they may be struggling but
-        don't want to appear incompetent. The sprint goal is at risk.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you address this in the moment without embarrassing them?
-        - What conversation do you have with them privately afterwards?
-        - How do you ensure the blocking dependency is resolved?
-        - What do you put in place to catch this earlier next time?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Ensures follow-through on delegated tasks
-        - Creates psychological safety while maintaining accountability
-        - Addresses both the immediate blocker and the underlying pattern
-        - Shows awareness of team accountability dynamics
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: own_mgmt_dev_1
-      text:
-        A team member shipped code that caused a production incident. During the
-        post-mortem, other team members want to assign blame.
-      context:
-        The incident affected 200 users for 45 minutes. The code was reviewed
-        and approved by another team member before merge. The author is junior
-        and clearly upset. Your team has no established incident ownership
-        culture.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you run the post-mortem to keep it constructive?
-        - How do you coach the team member privately afterwards?
-        - What do you say to the team about shared accountability?
-        - How do you start building an ownership culture from this moment?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates safe space for ownership while addressing the incident
-        - Coaches individual accountability constructively
-        - Models shared ownership rather than individual blame
-        - Begins establishing team accountability patterns
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: own_mgmt_pract_1
-      text:
-        Your team consistently treats operational issues as "someone else's
-        problem" once features ship. The platform team is overwhelmed.
-      context:
-        Your team shipped 12 features this quarter with strong velocity, but
-        operational tickets have doubled. The platform team lead has escalated
-        to your manager. Your team sees themselves as "builders, not operators."
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you shift the team from feature delivery to outcome ownership?
-        - What structural changes embed operational ownership?
-        - How do you have the conversation with the platform team lead?
-        - How do you measure and recognize end-to-end ownership?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Structures team around end-to-end ownership, not just features
-        - Balances autonomy with accountability for operational outcomes
-        - Builds clear ownership expectations with concrete mechanisms
-        - Takes responsibility for the team culture gap
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: own_mgmt_role_1
-      text:
-        A project you championed has missed its business targets after 6 months.
-        Technology works but adoption is far lower than projected.
-      context:
-        You estimated £500K in annual savings but actual savings are £120K.
-        Technical delivery was on time and on budget. The adoption gap is due to
-        change management issues outside your initial scope. Your peers are
-        distancing themselves from the project.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you own this outcome publicly with leadership?
-        - What do you do about the adoption gap specifically?
-        - How do you model accountability when the outcome isn't what you
-          projected?
-        - What would you do differently if starting again?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Models personal accountability publicly, including for indirect
-          outcomes
-        - Owns the business outcome, not just the technical delivery
-        - Takes action to close the gap rather than accepting current state
-        - Shows transparency about lessons learned
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: own_mgmt_exemp_1
-      text:
-        You need to establish ownership expectations across a function where
-        teams have very different accountability cultures.
-      context:
-        You lead a function of 8 teams (60+ engineers). Three teams have strong
-        ownership cultures, three are inconsistent, and two actively avoid
-        accountability. Recent reorgs mixed people from different cultures and
-        cross-team incidents are increasing.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you assess ownership maturity across teams?
-        - What organizational standards would you establish?
-        - How do you bring lower-performing teams up without bureaucracy?
-        - How do you handle managers who resist accountability expectations?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Establishes organizational accountability standards
-        - Takes a systemic approach rather than team-by-team fixing
-        - Balances accountability with psychological safety at scale
-        - Creates sustainable culture that survives personnel changes
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you measure the impact of the ownership culture change?

package/examples/questions/behaviours/polymathic_knowledge.yaml

@@ -1,275 +0,0 @@
-# yaml-language-server: $schema=https://www.forwardimpact.team/schema/json/behaviour-questions.schema.json
-
-professionalQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: poly_pro_emerg_1
-      text:
-        You're building a feature for a pharmaceutical client's clinical trial
-        management system. The PM hands you a spec full of domain terms you
-        don't understand.
-      context:
-        The feature tracks "adverse event reporting" with specific regulatory
-        timelines. The spec references ICH E2B guidelines, MedDRA coding, and
-        CIOMS forms. Your team has no pharma domain experts. The client expects
-        the first deliverable in 2 weeks and will review your data model.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you approach learning enough about this domain to build
-          effectively?
-        - What's the difference between blindly implementing the spec vs
-          understanding the domain?
-        - How would you know if you've learned enough to start building?
-        - What questions would you ask the client in your first meeting?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Recognizes that problems benefit from cross-disciplinary understanding
-        - Shows interest in domains beyond immediate technical requirements
-        - Asks questions that reveal genuine curiosity about the domain
-        - Willing to invest in learning unfamiliar territory
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: poly_pro_dev_1
-      text:
-        Your team is building a recommendation engine. You have strong backend
-        skills but the UX designer keeps talking about cognitive load and
-        decision fatigue. You don't understand their concerns.
-      context:
-        The recommendation engine shows 50 product suggestions. The UX designer
-        insists this will paralyze users, citing the "paradox of choice." The PM
-        sides with engineering — more recommendations means more sales. The
-        designer is frustrated that nobody understands their perspective.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you bridge the gap between the engineering and design
-          perspectives?
-        - What would you do to understand the UX designer's concerns more
-          deeply?
-        - How would knowledge of behavioral psychology change your technical
-          approach?
-        - How do you apply insights from one domain to inform decisions in
-          another?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Applies knowledge from one domain to inform decisions in another
-        - Studies adjacent fields to broaden perspective
-        - Begins learning the language of other disciplines
-        - Sees connections between technical implementation and human behavior
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: poly_pro_pract_1
-      text:
-        Your company is deciding between building vs buying a supply chain
-        optimization tool. Engineering says build, finance says buy, operations
-        says neither option fits their workflow.
-      context:
-        The build option would take 6 months and give full customization. The
-        buy option costs £200K/year but is available immediately. Operations has
-        unique workflows around cold chain management for biologics that neither
-        option handles well. You've been asked to lead the evaluation because
-        you understand both the technical and business sides.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you evaluate this spanning engineering, finance, and operations
-          perspectives?
-        - How do you speak the language of each stakeholder group?
-        - What insights from the operations domain would change the technical
-          approach?
-        - How do you synthesize cross-disciplinary concerns into a coherent
-          recommendation?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Bridges gaps between engineering, business, and domain expertise
-        - Rapidly immerses in new domains to make informed decisions
-        - Speaks the language of different stakeholder groups
-        - Makes better decisions by understanding broader context
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: poly_pro_role_1
-      text:
-        Your engineering team builds great software but consistently
-        misunderstands the commercial context. Features are technically
-        excellent but miss what customers actually need.
-      context:
-        In the last year, 3 features were technically impressive but
-        commercially unsuccessful. Engineers don't attend customer calls or read
-        commercial reports. The sales team has stopped asking engineering for
-        input on product direction. You see a growing disconnect between what
-        engineers think is important and what drives business value.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you get engineers to think like business insiders?
-        - What cross-disciplinary practices would you champion?
-        - How do you translate specialized engineering knowledge into business
-          language?
-        - How do you create holistic solutions spanning technical and business
-          domains?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Champions cross-disciplinary learning across the function
-        - Creates holistic solutions spanning technical and business domains
-        - Translates specialized knowledge into accessible explanations
-        - Thinks like a business insider, not just an engineer
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: poly_pro_exemp_1
-      text:
-        Your organization wants to create a new role — "Technical Domain Expert"
-        — that bridges engineering and the pharmaceutical business. Nobody
-        agrees on what this role should look like.
-      context:
-        The company builds software for pharma R&D. Engineers lack domain
-        knowledge; domain experts lack technical depth. Projects routinely fail
-        at the intersection. The CEO wants engineers who can "think like
-        scientists." You've been asked to define the role, the hiring criteria,
-        and the development path.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you define this role drawing from your polymathic
-          experience?
-        - How do you build a development path that creates genuine breadth, not
-          surface knowledge?
-        - How would you influence industry thinking about cross-disciplinary
-          engineering roles?
-        - What organizational structures would you create to sustain polymathic
-          growth?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shapes organizational learning strategy across disciplines
-        - Advises leadership on cross-functional strategy
-        - Influences industry practices around polymathic engineering
-        - Recognized as a thought leader bridging technology and business
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you assess whether someone is genuinely polymathic vs
-          superficially broad?
-
-managementQuestions:
-  emerging:
-    - id: poly_mgmt_emerg_1
-      text:
-        A team member wants to attend a 2-day workshop on pharmaceutical
-        regulatory processes. It's not directly related to their current project
-        work.
-      context:
-        The workshop covers FDA submission processes and GxP compliance. Your
-        team builds internal tools, not regulatory software. The team member
-        says "I want to understand what our company actually does." The workshop
-        conflicts with a sprint commitment. Your manager values predictable
-        delivery.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you evaluate the value of cross-domain learning for this team
-          member?
-        - How would you justify this to your manager?
-        - What would make you say yes vs no?
-        - How do you create a culture where this kind of exploration is
-          encouraged?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Supports cross-disciplinary learning even when not immediately
-          relevant
-        - Recognizes the long-term value of domain breadth
-        - Encourages team members to explore beyond their specialization
-        - Balances learning investment with delivery commitments
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  developing:
-    - id: poly_mgmt_dev_1
-      text:
-        Your team of infrastructure engineers struggles to understand why the
-        product team makes certain decisions. They build technically sound
-        solutions that don't align with product goals.
-      context:
-        Recent example — the team over-engineered a caching layer for a feature
-        that product planned to deprecate in 3 months. Engineers didn't know
-        about the deprecation because they don't attend product planning.
-        They've asked "why should we care about product strategy?"
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you create opportunities for your team to learn from the
-          product domain?
-        - How do you make cross-domain knowledge feel valuable, not like extra
-          work?
-        - What specific practices would you introduce?
-        - How do you handle engineers who resist learning beyond their technical
-          domain?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Creates structured cross-disciplinary learning opportunities
-        - Makes cross-domain knowledge practically relevant
-        - Builds bridges between engineering and other functions
-        - Doesn't force breadth but makes it naturally valuable
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  practicing:
-    - id: poly_mgmt_pract_1
-      text:
-        You manage a team that is highly specialized — everyone is an expert in
-        one narrow area but the system requires decisions that span multiple
-        domains.
-      context:
-        Your team of 8 has deep specialists in database performance, frontend
-        UX, API design, and security. A recent architecture decision required
-        all four perspectives but no one could evaluate the trade-offs across
-        domains. The decision was made by averaging opinions rather than
-        synthesizing them. Quality is suffering at the seams between
-        specializations.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you structure your team to leverage depth while building
-          breadth?
-        - What practices would you introduce to break specialization silos?
-        - How do you develop T-shaped engineers from I-shaped specialists?
-        - How do you handle the tension between deep expertise and broad
-          understanding?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Structures teams to leverage diverse knowledge
-        - Breaks down specialization silos with concrete practices
-        - Develops engineers toward polymathic breadth
-        - Creates environments where cross-domain synthesis happens naturally
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  role_modeling:
-    - id: poly_mgmt_role_1
-      text:
-        Your engineering function operates in silos — backend, frontend,
-        platform, and data teams rarely share knowledge or attend each other's
-        reviews.
-      context:
-        You lead 3 teams with 20 engineers. Each team has strong internal
-        culture but there's minimal cross-pollination. When a project requires
-        cross-team collaboration, it takes weeks to build shared understanding.
-        A recent project failed because the data team's model assumptions
-        conflicted with the backend team's architecture, and nobody caught it
-        until production.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How do you model polymathic learning as a leader?
-        - What structures would you create for cross-team knowledge sharing?
-        - How do you demonstrate the value of breadth to specialists who are
-          comfortable in their silos?
-        - How do you make cross-disciplinary collaboration a norm, not an
-          exception?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Models polymathic learning visibly as a leader
-        - Creates structures that promote cross-team knowledge
-        - Demonstrates value of breadth beyond just efficiency gains
-        - Builds collaborative culture across specialization boundaries
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-
-  exemplifying:
-    - id: poly_mgmt_exemp_1
-      text:
-        The organization wants to hire "full-stack" engineers but keeps
-        attracting deep specialists. Meanwhile, the most impactful engineers are
-        those with cross-domain knowledge.
-      context:
-        Exit interviews show that polymathic engineers leave because they feel
-        undervalued compared to deep specialists. The promotion criteria reward
-        depth. Hiring screens filter for specific tech skills, not cross-domain
-        thinking. The CEO observes that competitors with broader engineering
-        cultures ship faster.
-      simulationPrompts:
-        - How would you redesign hiring and promotion to value polymathic
-          knowledge?
-        - How do you build organizational incentives for breadth alongside
-          depth?
-        - How do you coach other managers to value cross-disciplinary growth?
-        - How do you balance the need for specialization with the strategic
-          value of breadth?
-      lookingFor:
-        - Shapes organizational structures to promote polymathic culture
-        - Redesigns talent practices to value breadth
-        - Coaches other managers on developing cross-disciplinary teams
-        - Strategic approach to balancing depth and breadth at scale
-      expectedDurationMinutes: 20
-      followUps:
-        - How would you measure the business impact of polymathic culture?