You: We should take a moment to acknowledge the delays that have arisen over the last few weeks. I don't intend to lay the blame on anyone. I'm aware of the pressure this project is exerting upon both teams and know that everyone is working hard to resolve these issues as they arise. Can we discuss what we all intend to do to collaborate on finding solutions? Isobel: I mean... Yes. There have been delays, and turnaround has been... slower than we'd hoped. Lawrence: For good reasons. Santino: And we'd like to hear about those reasons. We're here to find solutions: if we can understand the root of these delays, we can help put measures in place to resolve them. We need to clarify who the risk owners are, and update the risk log. Isobel: The detail-oriented nature of this work has added a layer of complexity that is stretching the technical capabilities of our teams. Lawrence: Honestly, there are skills gaps—with integration, and regarding our team's understanding of the applications. And these limitations are leading to slower turnaround times, absolutely—and it's being compounded by the fact that this project is happening alongside our team's existing workload. Narrator (feedback): While this was a non-judgemental attempt to collaborate, this response doesn't provide the framework to start the conversation—or move it toward specific solutions. Everyone knows what the issues are; however, you haven't addressed them. A difficult conversation needs to be had with Vencala about managing dependencies in order to mitigate downstream impacts. With this in mind, what will you say next?
Questão
You: We should take a moment to acknowledge the delays that have arisen over the last few weeks. I don't intend to lay the blame on anyone. I'm aware of the pressure this project is exerting upon both teams and know that everyone is working hard to resolve these issues as they arise. Can we discuss what we all intend to do to collaborate on finding solutions?
Isobel: I mean... Yes. There have been delays, and turnaround has been... slower than we'd hoped.
Lawrence: For good reasons.
Santino: And we'd like to hear about those reasons. We're here to find solutions: if we can understand the root of these delays, we can help put measures in place to resolve them. We need to clarify who the risk owners are, and update the risk log.
Isobel: The detail-oriented nature of this work has added a layer of complexity that is stretching the technical capabilities of our teams.
Lawrence: Honestly, there are skills gaps—with integration, and regarding our team's understanding of the applications. And these limitations are leading to slower turnaround times, absolutely—and it's being compounded by the fact that this project is happening alongside our team's existing workload.
Narrator (feedback): While this was a non-judgemental attempt to collaborate, this response doesn't provide the framework to start the conversation—or move it toward specific solutions. Everyone knows what the issues are; however, you haven't addressed them. A difficult conversation needs to be had with Vencala about managing dependencies in order to mitigate downstream impacts. With this in mind, what will you say next?
Alternativas
A) Thank you for being forthcoming. To overcome these delays, there are many possibilities we could explore together. For example, we could add more resources on our side, which would raise the cost while accelerating delivery. We could bring in cloud migration specialists to support the skills of your team, or we could reduce the scope. However, we'd like to hear from you about what you need, before proceeding.
B) Thank you for your candor. It's clear that the skills gaps you have identified are directly contributing to slow turnaround. To ensure successful delivery and not add additional risk to the project's timeline, I would suggest that we undertake an effort to upskill your team so that they can deliver what we need to complete our portion of the work.
C) Thank you for sharing your perspective. We need to work together on a solution. We can look at reducing the scope—such as limiting the functionality—in order to reallocate resources. We could also add extra time to our project plan, though I know there may be unwillingness to do that, from the business. We could, of course, provide additional IBM resources, which would incur additional costs.
Explicação
O feedback do narrador indica que a conversa precisa sair do nível genérico (“há atrasos”) e caminhar para um framework de solução, especialmente para tratar dependências e mitigar impactos a jusante (downstream). A melhor próxima fala deve:
- Manter o tom colaborativo e não acusatório, para não gerar defensividade.
- Apontar caminhos concretos de mitigação (recursos adicionais, especialistas, ajuste de escopo), conectando diretamente com as causas levantadas (complexidade, gaps de integração/conhecimento, carga de trabalho).
- Abrir espaço para o outro time dizer o que precisa, o que ajuda a estruturar um plano acionável (quem é dono de qual risco, qual mitigação, e como isso entra no risk log).
A alternativa A faz exatamente isso: reconhece a franqueza, apresenta opções práticas (mais recursos, especialistas, reduzir escopo) e, crucialmente, pergunta o que o time deles precisa antes de decidir — o que cria a estrutura para alinhar donos de risco e medidas.
A B tende a soar mais diretiva/culpabilizadora (“skills gaps… diretamente contribuindo”), e foca só em upskilling, sem endereçar explicitamente dependências/medidas mais amplas.
A C traz opções, mas não estabelece tão bem o convite para entender necessidades e co-definir o plano; fica mais como uma lista (escopo/tempo/recursos) sem a mesma abertura e enquadramento colaborativo.
Alternativa correta: (A).
Travou em outra questão? A gente resolve.
Crie sua conta grátis e resolva 3 questões por dia com explicação passo a passo, por texto ou foto.