While escalating to the STE (option B) might be necessary for very complex dependencies, the RTE’s first and most effective action is to facilitate direct collaboration between the teams. Creating a shared PI Objective (option C) aligns their goals and fosters ownership, while a regular sync ensures ongoing communication. This approach embodies the SAFe principle of decentralizing decision-making and building cross-team collaboration, which is more proactive and effective than just documenting (option A) or merely making it visible (option D).

Non-functional requirements (NFRs), especially those concerning the Architectural Runway, are critical enablers of future business value. The RTE must ensure they are treated with appropriate urgency and rigor. While the I&A (option D) is for systemic improvements, an immediate concern about the solution’s performance requires prompt analysis by the key roles responsible for the solution intent and architecture (Product Management and System Architects). This allows for a fact-based assessment of the feedback’s validity and impact (option B), which should then inform decisions about potential adjustments to the current PI plan or the vision for the next.

The RTE operates at the program level and is responsible for identifying and removing systemic impediments that are beyond the team’s or Scrum Master’s control. A persistent decline in velocity across multiple iterations often points to program-level issues like unresolved dependencies, inadequate environments, or misalignment. The RTE’s primary action should be to look at the broader system (option B) using ART-level artifacts and metrics. While coaching (option A) can be part of the RTE’s role, the immediate need is for systemic analysis, not just more team-level techniques.

The RTE is a servant leader and coach for the ART, fundamentally accountable for optimizing the flow of value. This is achieved by facilitating key events like PI Planning, managing dependencies between teams and other ARTs, synchronizing activities (e.g., Scrum of Scrums, System Demo), and relentlessly removing impediments that hinder the train’s progress. While the RTE supports backlog visibility, they do not prioritize the Program Backlog (that’s Product Management’s role – option A), write stories (option C), or define architecture (option D).

The Scrum of Scrums is intended to be a problem-solving session, not just a status meeting. The RTE, as the facilitator, must design the event to encourage collaboration. Reframing the agenda (option B) explicitly prioritizes problem-solving and keeps status updates concise, which directly addresses the observed dysfunction. Canceling the event (option A) loses a crucial synchronization point. Mandating full attendance (option C) is often inefficient. While the RTE may track issues, assigning actions unilaterally (option D) undermines team ownership and self-organization.

The ART leadership triad consists of the Release Train Engineer (RTE), Product Management, and System Architect. The RTE is accountable for program execution and flow. Product Management is accountable for the ‘what’ – the vision and content. The System Architect/Engineering is accountable for the ‘how’ – the non-functional requirements and architectural runway. Together, they provide balanced leadership across process, content, and technology to guide the ART. Business Owners (option C/D) are stakeholders, not part of the core day-to-day leadership triad.

A core purpose of the I&A is to confront all facts without blame. A disconnect between metrics and sentiment is a valuable clue. The RTE must create a safe environment to explore this paradox (option C). Perhaps the objectives were based on flawed assumptions, or teams were blocked by external dependencies, or ‘busy work’ replaced value delivery. Ignoring either data set (options A & B) is incomplete. Jumping to adjust goals (option D) without a root-cause analysis is premature and may address a symptom, not the cause.

PI Planning is the cornerstone event for creating alignment in SAFe. Its core purpose is to bring all teams together with business and technology stakeholders to collaboratively develop a plan for the next PI. The key outputs are not a rigid, fixed task plan (option A), but a set of negotiated PI Objectives that create shared vision and commitment. While teams do plan (contradicting option D), they do so in a highly collaborative, dependency-aware context. It is a planning session, not a task-assignment meeting (option C).

The RTE guides the ART in adapting to change while protecting teams from disruptive top-down decisions. A sudden, unplanned reassignment (option A) can damage the other team’s commitment and morale. The appropriate response is to bring together the key roles responsible for the content (Product Manager, Product Owner) and the team’s process (Scrum Master) to collaboratively re-plan based on the new reality (option B). This may involve scoping the Feature down, getting help from other teams, or formally re-negotiating the PI Objective. Mandating overtime (option C) is unsustainable and violates SAFe principles. Deferring without analysis (option D) is a last resort, not a first action.

While escalating to the STE (option B) might be necessary for very complex dependencies, the RTE’s first and most effective action is to facilitate direct collaboration between the teams. Creating a shared PI Objective (option C) aligns their goals and fosters ownership, while a regular sync ensures ongoing communication. This approach embodies the SAFe principle of decentralizing decision-making and building cross-team collaboration, which is more proactive and effective than just documenting (option A) or merely making it visible (option D).0