agentic-team-templates 0.19.0 → 0.20.0
This diff represents the content of publicly available package versions that have been released to one of the supported registries. The information contained in this diff is provided for informational purposes only and reflects changes between package versions as they appear in their respective public registries.
- package/package.json +1 -1
- package/src/index.js +20 -0
- package/src/index.test.js +4 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/overview.md +94 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/reporting.md +259 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/risk-management.md +255 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/scheduling.md +251 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/scope-management.md +227 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/.cursor/rules/stakeholder-management.md +254 -0
- package/templates/business/project-manager/CLAUDE.md +540 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/cost-modeling.md +380 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/demand-forecasting.md +285 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/inventory-management.md +200 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/logistics.md +296 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/overview.md +102 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/.cursor/rules/supplier-evaluation.md +298 -0
- package/templates/business/supply-chain/CLAUDE.md +590 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/calendar.md +120 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/confidentiality.md +81 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/email.md +77 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/meetings.md +107 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/overview.md +96 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/prioritization.md +105 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/stakeholder-management.md +90 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/.cursor/rules/travel.md +115 -0
- package/templates/professional/executive-assistant/CLAUDE.md +620 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/budgets.md +106 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/compliance.md +99 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/funding-research.md +80 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/narrative.md +135 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/overview.md +63 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/post-award.md +105 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/review-criteria.md +120 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/.cursor/rules/sustainability.md +110 -0
- package/templates/professional/grant-writer/CLAUDE.md +577 -0
|
@@ -0,0 +1,254 @@
|
|
|
1
|
+
# Stakeholder Management
|
|
2
|
+
|
|
3
|
+
Guidelines for identifying, engaging, and aligning project stakeholders.
|
|
4
|
+
|
|
5
|
+
## Core Principles
|
|
6
|
+
|
|
7
|
+
### Stakeholders Determine Success
|
|
8
|
+
|
|
9
|
+
A project can meet every technical requirement and still fail if stakeholders are misaligned. Stakeholder management is not optional - it is a core PM discipline.
|
|
10
|
+
|
|
11
|
+
```markdown
|
|
12
|
+
Wrong: "I'll send status reports and hope everyone stays aligned"
|
|
13
|
+
Right: "I'll proactively manage expectations, resolve conflicts, and ensure every stakeholder has the information they need to support the project"
|
|
14
|
+
```
|
|
15
|
+
|
|
16
|
+
### Influence Without Authority
|
|
17
|
+
|
|
18
|
+
PMs rarely have direct authority over stakeholders. Success comes from building trust, demonstrating competence, and creating mutual value.
|
|
19
|
+
|
|
20
|
+
## Stakeholder Identification
|
|
21
|
+
|
|
22
|
+
### Stakeholder Register Template
|
|
23
|
+
|
|
24
|
+
| Name | Role | Organization | Interest | Influence | Disposition | Communication Preference |
|
|
25
|
+
|------|------|-------------|----------|-----------|-------------|-------------------------|
|
|
26
|
+
| [Name] | Sponsor | Executive | High | High | Supportive | Weekly 1:1 |
|
|
27
|
+
| [Name] | Tech Lead | Engineering | High | Medium | Neutral | Daily standup |
|
|
28
|
+
| [Name] | End User Rep | Operations | Medium | Low | Resistant | Bi-weekly demo |
|
|
29
|
+
|
|
30
|
+
### Stakeholder Mapping (Power/Interest Grid)
|
|
31
|
+
|
|
32
|
+
```text
|
|
33
|
+
High Influence │ Keep Satisfied │ Manage Closely
|
|
34
|
+
│ (Sponsor who │ (Sponsor, key
|
|
35
|
+
│ delegates) │ decision-makers)
|
|
36
|
+
│──────────────────┼──────────────────
|
|
37
|
+
Low Influence │ Monitor │ Keep Informed
|
|
38
|
+
│ (Peripheral │ (End users,
|
|
39
|
+
│ stakeholders) │ support teams)
|
|
40
|
+
└──────────────────┴──────────────────
|
|
41
|
+
Low Interest High Interest
|
|
42
|
+
```
|
|
43
|
+
|
|
44
|
+
### Stakeholder Categories
|
|
45
|
+
|
|
46
|
+
| Category | Examples | Engagement Level |
|
|
47
|
+
|----------|----------|-----------------|
|
|
48
|
+
| **Decision Makers** | Sponsor, steering committee | Active management |
|
|
49
|
+
| **Influencers** | Senior engineers, domain experts | Regular consultation |
|
|
50
|
+
| **Contributors** | Team members, subject matter experts | Daily coordination |
|
|
51
|
+
| **Affected Parties** | End users, support teams | Regular communication |
|
|
52
|
+
| **External** | Vendors, regulators, partners | As needed |
|
|
53
|
+
|
|
54
|
+
## RACI Matrix
|
|
55
|
+
|
|
56
|
+
### Building a RACI
|
|
57
|
+
|
|
58
|
+
| Activity | Sponsor | PM | Tech Lead | Designer | QA | Business Owner |
|
|
59
|
+
|----------|---------|-----|-----------|----------|-----|----------------|
|
|
60
|
+
| Charter Approval | A | R | I | - | - | C |
|
|
61
|
+
| Requirements | I | A | C | C | I | R |
|
|
62
|
+
| Architecture | I | I | R | - | C | - |
|
|
63
|
+
| Design | I | A | C | R | I | C |
|
|
64
|
+
| Development | I | A | R | C | I | - |
|
|
65
|
+
| Testing | I | A | C | - | R | C |
|
|
66
|
+
| Deployment | A | R | R | - | C | I |
|
|
67
|
+
| Acceptance | R | A | I | I | I | R |
|
|
68
|
+
|
|
69
|
+
### RACI Rules
|
|
70
|
+
|
|
71
|
+
```markdown
|
|
72
|
+
Do:
|
|
73
|
+
- Exactly one "A" (Accountable) per row
|
|
74
|
+
- At least one "R" (Responsible) per row
|
|
75
|
+
- Limit "C" (Consulted) to those whose input is truly needed
|
|
76
|
+
- Use "I" (Informed) for awareness without requiring response
|
|
77
|
+
- Review RACI at project kickoff with all stakeholders
|
|
78
|
+
|
|
79
|
+
Don't:
|
|
80
|
+
- Assign "A" and "R" to the same person habitually (single point of failure)
|
|
81
|
+
- Make everyone "C" on everything (decision paralysis)
|
|
82
|
+
- Skip RACI review when team membership changes
|
|
83
|
+
- Use RACI as a substitute for actual conversations
|
|
84
|
+
```
|
|
85
|
+
|
|
86
|
+
### RACI Anti-Patterns
|
|
87
|
+
|
|
88
|
+
| Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|
|
89
|
+
|---------|---------|-----|
|
|
90
|
+
| Too many C's | Decisions take forever | Limit consulted roles to true subject matter experts |
|
|
91
|
+
| Missing A | Nobody owns the outcome | Assign one accountable person per activity |
|
|
92
|
+
| R without capacity | Responsible person is overloaded | Validate workload when assigning responsibilities |
|
|
93
|
+
| A without authority | Accountable person cannot make decisions | Ensure A has decision-making power |
|
|
94
|
+
|
|
95
|
+
## Communication Plan
|
|
96
|
+
|
|
97
|
+
### Communication Plan Template
|
|
98
|
+
|
|
99
|
+
| Stakeholder | Information Need | Method | Frequency | Owner | Notes |
|
|
100
|
+
|-------------|-----------------|--------|-----------|-------|-------|
|
|
101
|
+
| Sponsor | Status, risks, decisions | 1:1 meeting | Weekly | PM | 30 min, focus on escalations |
|
|
102
|
+
| Steering Committee | Strategic status | Presentation | Monthly | PM | Formal agenda required |
|
|
103
|
+
| Project Team | Tasks, blockers | Standup | Daily | Scrum Master | 15 min max |
|
|
104
|
+
| End Users | Progress, training | Newsletter | Bi-weekly | PM + BA | Include demo schedule |
|
|
105
|
+
| Vendors | Specs, timelines | Email + call | As needed | PM | Document all decisions |
|
|
106
|
+
|
|
107
|
+
### Communication Principles
|
|
108
|
+
|
|
109
|
+
| Principle | Application |
|
|
110
|
+
|-----------|-------------|
|
|
111
|
+
| Right message, right audience | Executives get summaries; teams get details |
|
|
112
|
+
| No surprises | Share bad news early with a proposed response |
|
|
113
|
+
| Two-way dialogue | Listen as much as you communicate |
|
|
114
|
+
| Written confirmation | Follow up verbal decisions with email summary |
|
|
115
|
+
| Consistent cadence | Stakeholders should know when to expect updates |
|
|
116
|
+
|
|
117
|
+
## Expectation Management
|
|
118
|
+
|
|
119
|
+
### Setting Expectations
|
|
120
|
+
|
|
121
|
+
```markdown
|
|
122
|
+
## Expectation Setting Checklist
|
|
123
|
+
|
|
124
|
+
At Project Kickoff:
|
|
125
|
+
- [ ] Review and confirm project scope with stakeholders
|
|
126
|
+
- [ ] Align on success criteria and how they will be measured
|
|
127
|
+
- [ ] Agree on communication cadence and format
|
|
128
|
+
- [ ] Clarify decision-making authority (RACI)
|
|
129
|
+
- [ ] Discuss known risks and constraints openly
|
|
130
|
+
- [ ] Set realistic timeline expectations with documented assumptions
|
|
131
|
+
|
|
132
|
+
Ongoing:
|
|
133
|
+
- [ ] Flag deviations from plan immediately
|
|
134
|
+
- [ ] Re-confirm priorities when trade-offs arise
|
|
135
|
+
- [ ] Validate that stakeholder needs have not shifted
|
|
136
|
+
- [ ] Celebrate milestones to maintain confidence
|
|
137
|
+
```
|
|
138
|
+
|
|
139
|
+
### Managing Difficult Stakeholders
|
|
140
|
+
|
|
141
|
+
| Behavior | Response Strategy |
|
|
142
|
+
|----------|-------------------|
|
|
143
|
+
| **Disengaged sponsor** | Schedule brief, focused updates; escalate only critical items; make it easy to stay involved |
|
|
144
|
+
| **Scope expander** | Redirect to change control process; show impact on schedule/budget; offer trade-offs |
|
|
145
|
+
| **Micromanager** | Provide detailed status proactively; build trust through transparency; agree on escalation triggers |
|
|
146
|
+
| **Resistant to change** | Understand their concerns; involve them in decision-making; show evidence and data |
|
|
147
|
+
| **Conflicting priorities** | Facilitate alignment meeting; escalate to shared manager if needed; document agreed priorities |
|
|
148
|
+
|
|
149
|
+
### Expectation Reset Conversation
|
|
150
|
+
|
|
151
|
+
```markdown
|
|
152
|
+
## Framework for Resetting Expectations
|
|
153
|
+
|
|
154
|
+
1. **Acknowledge the original expectation**
|
|
155
|
+
"We originally planned to deliver [X] by [date]."
|
|
156
|
+
|
|
157
|
+
2. **Explain what changed**
|
|
158
|
+
"Since then, [specific change] has impacted our timeline/scope/budget."
|
|
159
|
+
|
|
160
|
+
3. **Present the current reality**
|
|
161
|
+
"Based on current progress, we now expect [revised projection]."
|
|
162
|
+
|
|
163
|
+
4. **Offer options**
|
|
164
|
+
"Option A: Reduce scope to meet the original date."
|
|
165
|
+
"Option B: Extend the timeline by [X] to deliver full scope."
|
|
166
|
+
"Option C: Add [resources] to accelerate delivery."
|
|
167
|
+
|
|
168
|
+
5. **Recommend and ask for decision**
|
|
169
|
+
"I recommend Option [X] because [rationale]. Can we align on this?"
|
|
170
|
+
```
|
|
171
|
+
|
|
172
|
+
## Conflict Resolution
|
|
173
|
+
|
|
174
|
+
### Conflict Resolution Framework
|
|
175
|
+
|
|
176
|
+
```text
|
|
177
|
+
Level 1: Direct Resolution
|
|
178
|
+
├── Discuss privately with the parties involved
|
|
179
|
+
├── Focus on interests, not positions
|
|
180
|
+
├── Seek mutual understanding
|
|
181
|
+
└── Agree on a path forward
|
|
182
|
+
|
|
183
|
+
Level 2: Facilitated Resolution
|
|
184
|
+
├── Bring in a neutral facilitator
|
|
185
|
+
├── Structure the conversation around shared objectives
|
|
186
|
+
├── Document agreed resolution
|
|
187
|
+
└── Follow up to ensure resolution holds
|
|
188
|
+
|
|
189
|
+
Level 3: Escalation
|
|
190
|
+
├── Summarize the conflict objectively for the decision-maker
|
|
191
|
+
├── Present each perspective fairly
|
|
192
|
+
├── Provide a recommendation
|
|
193
|
+
└── Accept and support the decision
|
|
194
|
+
```
|
|
195
|
+
|
|
196
|
+
### Conflict Resolution Best Practices
|
|
197
|
+
|
|
198
|
+
```markdown
|
|
199
|
+
Do:
|
|
200
|
+
- Address conflict early before it escalates
|
|
201
|
+
- Focus on the issue, not the person
|
|
202
|
+
- Seek to understand before seeking to be understood
|
|
203
|
+
- Look for win-win solutions
|
|
204
|
+
- Document the resolution and follow up
|
|
205
|
+
|
|
206
|
+
Don't:
|
|
207
|
+
- Avoid or ignore conflict (it festers)
|
|
208
|
+
- Take sides prematurely
|
|
209
|
+
- Resolve conflict via email (use face-to-face or video)
|
|
210
|
+
- Let conflict become personal
|
|
211
|
+
- Re-litigate resolved decisions without new information
|
|
212
|
+
```
|
|
213
|
+
|
|
214
|
+
### Common Conflict Sources in Projects
|
|
215
|
+
|
|
216
|
+
| Source | Example | Prevention |
|
|
217
|
+
|--------|---------|------------|
|
|
218
|
+
| Resource competition | Two projects need the same developer | Coordinate with resource manager; escalate early |
|
|
219
|
+
| Scope disagreement | Stakeholder expects feature not in scope | Reference scope statement; use change control |
|
|
220
|
+
| Priority conflicts | Stakeholder wants their feature first | Use objective prioritization framework |
|
|
221
|
+
| Technical disagreement | Team disagrees on architecture | Facilitate decision with criteria; PM breaks ties if needed |
|
|
222
|
+
| Role confusion | Two people think they own the same decision | Reference RACI; clarify in team meeting |
|
|
223
|
+
|
|
224
|
+
## Stakeholder Engagement Metrics
|
|
225
|
+
|
|
226
|
+
### Measuring Engagement Health
|
|
227
|
+
|
|
228
|
+
| Metric | Healthy | Warning | Action Needed |
|
|
229
|
+
|--------|---------|---------|---------------|
|
|
230
|
+
| Meeting attendance | > 80% | 50-80% | < 50% |
|
|
231
|
+
| Decision turnaround | < 3 days | 3-7 days | > 7 days |
|
|
232
|
+
| Feedback response | Within 2 days | 2-5 days | > 5 days |
|
|
233
|
+
| Escalation frequency | Rare | Monthly | Weekly |
|
|
234
|
+
| Scope change requests | Occasional | Frequent | Constant |
|
|
235
|
+
|
|
236
|
+
### Engagement Recovery Actions
|
|
237
|
+
|
|
238
|
+
| Signal | Action |
|
|
239
|
+
|--------|--------|
|
|
240
|
+
| Sponsor missing meetings | Schedule shorter, more focused sessions; send advance summary |
|
|
241
|
+
| Slow decision-making | Reduce options to 2-3; provide clear recommendation; set deadline |
|
|
242
|
+
| Increasing resistance | Schedule 1:1 to understand concerns; involve them in solution design |
|
|
243
|
+
| Communication breakdown | Reset communication plan; increase frequency temporarily |
|
|
244
|
+
|
|
245
|
+
## Common Pitfalls
|
|
246
|
+
|
|
247
|
+
| Pitfall | Symptom | Solution |
|
|
248
|
+
|---------|---------|----------|
|
|
249
|
+
| Ignoring silent stakeholders | Last-minute objections | Proactively engage all identified stakeholders |
|
|
250
|
+
| Treating all stakeholders the same | Over-communicating to some, under-communicating to others | Use power/interest grid to tailor engagement |
|
|
251
|
+
| RACI created but not used | Role confusion persists | Reference RACI when conflicts arise; review quarterly |
|
|
252
|
+
| No communication plan | Ad hoc, inconsistent updates | Create and follow a formal communication plan |
|
|
253
|
+
| Avoiding difficult conversations | Problems escalate unnecessarily | Address issues early; use structured frameworks |
|
|
254
|
+
| Forgetting external stakeholders | Vendor or partner surprises | Include vendors and partners in stakeholder register |
|