Conflict Resolution Leadership

Scenario: Resolve a complex merge conflict involving multiple teams and architectural decisions

1. Create a complex conflict scenario:

   mkdir conflict-resolution-demo
   cd conflict-resolution-demo
   git init
   
   # Create main branch with initial architecture
   echo "class UserManager {
     constructor(config) {
       this.database = config.database;
       this.cache = config.cache;
     }
     
     async getUser(id) {
       // Check cache first
       let user = await this.cache.get(`user:${id}`);
       if (!user) {
         user = await this.database.findById(id);
         await this.cache.set(`user:${id}`, user);
       }
       return user;
     }
   }" > user-manager.js
   
   git add user-manager.js
   git commit -m "feat: initial user management system"

2. Create conflicting approaches from different teams:

   # Team A: Performance optimization approach
   git checkout -b feature/team-a-performance
   cat > user-manager.js << 'EOF'
   class UserManager {
     constructor(config) {
       this.database = config.database;
       this.cache = config.cache;
       this.metrics = config.metrics;
     }
     
     async getUser(id) {
       const startTime = Date.now();
       
       // Performance: Parallel cache and database query
       const [cachedUser, dbUser] = await Promise.allSettled([
         this.cache.get(`user:${id}`),
         this.database.findById(id)
       ]);
       
       let user;
       if (cachedUser.status === 'fulfilled' && cachedUser.value) {
         user = cachedUser.value;
         this.metrics.recordCacheHit();
       } else if (dbUser.status === 'fulfilled') {
         user = dbUser.value;
         await this.cache.set(`user:${id}`, user);
         this.metrics.recordCacheMiss();
       }
       
       this.metrics.recordResponseTime(Date.now() - startTime);
       return user;
     }
     
     // Performance: Batch operations
     async getUsers(ids) {
       return Promise.all(ids.map(id => this.getUser(id)));
     }
   }
   EOF
   
   git add user-manager.js
   git commit -m "feat: optimize user manager for performance"

3. Create second conflicting approach:

   # Team B: Security and validation approach
   git checkout main
   git checkout -b feature/team-b-security
   cat > user-manager.js << 'EOF'
   class UserManager {
     constructor(config) {
       this.database = config.database;
       this.cache = config.cache;
       this.validator = config.validator;
       this.audit = config.audit;
     }
     
     async getUser(id) {
       // Security: Validate input
       if (!this.validator.isValidUserId(id)) {
         throw new Error('Invalid user ID format');
       }
       
       // Audit: Log access attempt
       await this.audit.logUserAccess(id);
       
       // Check cache first
       let user = await this.cache.get(`user:${id}`);
       if (!user) {
         user = await this.database.findById(id);
         if (!user) {
           await this.audit.logUserNotFound(id);
           return null;
         }
         // Security: Sanitize sensitive data before caching
         const sanitizedUser = this.sanitizeUser(user);
         await this.cache.set(`user:${id}`, sanitizedUser);
         user = sanitizedUser;
       }
       
       return user;
     }
     
     sanitizeUser(user) {
       const { password, ssn, ...sanitized } = user;
       return sanitized;
     }
     
     // Security: Role-based access
     async getUserWithPermissions(id, requesterId) {
       await this.audit.logAccessAttempt(requesterId, id);
       const requester = await this.getUser(requesterId);
       if (!requester || !this.hasPermission(requester, 'READ_USER')) {
         throw new Error('Insufficient permissions');
       }
       return this.getUser(id);
     }
     
     hasPermission(user, permission) {
       return user.roles && user.roles.some(role => 
         role.permissions && role.permissions.includes(permission)
       );
     }
   }
   EOF
   
   git add user-manager.js
   git commit -m "feat: add security and audit capabilities"

4. Practice strategic conflict resolution:

   # Create integration branch to resolve conflicts
   git checkout main
   git checkout -b integration/user-manager-v2
   
   # Attempt to merge both approaches
   git merge feature/team-a-performance --no-commit
   git merge feature/team-b-security --no-commit
   
   # Create strategic resolution combining both approaches
   cat > user-manager.js << 'EOF'
   class UserManager {
     constructor(config) {
       this.database = config.database;
       this.cache = config.cache;
       this.metrics = config.metrics || null;
       this.validator = config.validator;
       this.audit = config.audit;
     }
     
     async getUser(id, requesterId = null) {
       // Security: Validate input
       if (!this.validator.isValidUserId(id)) {
         throw new Error('Invalid user ID format');
       }
       
       const startTime = Date.now();
       
       // Audit: Log access attempt
       if (requesterId) {
         await this.audit.logAccessAttempt(requesterId, id);
         // Check permissions for protected access
         const requester = await this._getBasicUser(requesterId);
         if (!this.hasPermission(requester, 'READ_USER')) {
           throw new Error('Insufficient permissions');
         }
       } else {
         await this.audit.logUserAccess(id);
       }
       
       return this._getBasicUser(id, startTime);
     }
     
     async _getBasicUser(id, startTime = Date.now()) {
       // Performance: Check cache first, but prepare for DB fallback
       let user = await this.cache.get(`user:${id}`);
       
       if (user) {
         this.metrics?.recordCacheHit();
       } else {
         user = await this.database.findById(id);
         if (!user) {
           await this.audit.logUserNotFound(id);
           return null;
         }
         
         // Security: Sanitize before caching
         const sanitizedUser = this.sanitizeUser(user);
         await this.cache.set(`user:${id}`, sanitizedUser);
         user = sanitizedUser;
         this.metrics?.recordCacheMiss();
       }
       
       this.metrics?.recordResponseTime(Date.now() - startTime);
       return user;
     }
     
     // Performance: Batch operations with security
     async getUsers(ids, requesterId = null) {
       // Validate all IDs first
       const invalidIds = ids.filter(id => !this.validator.isValidUserId(id));
       if (invalidIds.length > 0) {
         throw new Error(`Invalid user IDs: ${invalidIds.join(', ')}`);
       }
       
       // Check permissions once for batch operation
       if (requesterId) {
         const requester = await this._getBasicUser(requesterId);
         if (!this.hasPermission(requester, 'READ_USER')) {
           throw new Error('Insufficient permissions');
         }
       }
       
       return Promise.all(ids.map(id => this._getBasicUser(id)));
     }
     
     sanitizeUser(user) {
       const { password, ssn, ...sanitized } = user;
       return sanitized;
     }
     
     hasPermission(user, permission) {
       return user?.roles?.some(role => 
         role.permissions?.includes(permission)
       );
     }
   }
   EOF
   
   # Document the resolution decision
   cat > CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md << 'EOF'
   # Conflict Resolution: UserManager Integration
   
   ## Conflict Summary
   Two teams implemented different enhancements to UserManager:
   - **Team A**: Performance optimizations with metrics and batch operations
   - **Team B**: Security enhancements with validation, audit, and permissions
   
   ## Resolution Strategy: Hybrid Integration
   
   ### Decisions Made
   1. **Combined both feature sets** - Both performance and security are critical
   2. **Refactored architecture** - Split public and private methods for cleaner integration
   3. **Maintained backward compatibility** - Existing getUser() calls still work
   4. **Added optional features** - Metrics and permissions are optional based on config
   
   ### Implementation Details
   - `getUser()` now supports optional requesterId for permission checks
   - `_getBasicUser()` handles core logic without permission overhead
   - Metrics are optional (null-safe) to support different deployment configs
   - Batch operations include security validation
   
   ### Trade-offs
   - **Pro**: Full feature integration without sacrificing either team's work
   - **Pro**: Clean separation of concerns with private methods
   - **Con**: Slightly more complex API with optional parameters
   - **Con**: Additional maintenance overhead for dual code paths
   
   ### Follow-up Actions
   - [ ] Update documentation for new optional parameters
   - [ ] Add integration tests covering both performance and security scenarios
   - [ ] Team training on new permission-based access patterns
   - [ ] Performance benchmarking with security features enabled
   
   ### Lessons Learned
   - Early coordination could have prevented architectural conflicts
   - Both teams' requirements were valid and complementary
   - Hybrid solutions often provide the best long-term value
   EOF
   
   git add user-manager.js CONFLICT_RESOLUTION.md
   git commit -m "resolve: integrate performance and security features
   
   This resolution combines Team A's performance optimizations
   with Team B's security enhancements through architectural
   refactoring that maintains both feature sets.
   
   Resolves conflicts between:
   - feature/team-a-performance (metrics, batch ops, parallel queries)
   - feature/team-b-security (validation, audit, permissions)
   
   Result: Hybrid UserManager with optional security features
   and maintained performance optimizations."

Scenario: Lead a team through a complex architectural decision with conflicting viewpoints

1. Create an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) template:

   # Create ADR system for technical decisions
   mkdir -p docs/adr
   cat > docs/adr/template.md << 'EOF'
   # ADR-000: [Title]
   
   **Status:** [Proposed | Accepted | Deprecated | Superseded]  
   **Date:** YYYY-MM-DD  
   **Deciders:** [List of people involved in decision]  
   **Technical Story:** [Ticket/issue URL]
   
   ## Context and Problem Statement
   
   Describe the context and problem statement that led to this decision.
   What is the architectural decision we need to make?
   
   ## Decision Drivers
   
   * [Driver 1: e.g., performance requirements]
   * [Driver 2: e.g., security constraints]  
   * [Driver 3: e.g., team expertise]
   * [Driver 4: e.g., time constraints]
   
   ## Considered Options
   
   * [Option 1: Brief description]
   * [Option 2: Brief description]
   * [Option 3: Brief description]
   
   ## Decision Outcome
   
   **Chosen option:** "[Option X]"
   
   ### Positive Consequences
   
   * [Benefit 1]
   * [Benefit 2]
   
   ### Negative Consequences
   
   * [Risk/Cost 1]
   * [Risk/Cost 2]
   
   ## Pros and Cons of the Options
   
   ### [Option 1]
   
   * ✅ Good, because [argument 1]
   * ✅ Good, because [argument 2]
   * ❌ Bad, because [argument 3]
   * ❌ Bad, because [argument 4]
   
   ### [Option 2]
   
   * ✅ Good, because [argument 1]
   * ❌ Bad, because [argument 2]
   
   ## Links
   
   * [Related decisions]
   * [Reference materials]
   EOF
   
   # Create example ADR for a real architectural decision
   cat > docs/adr/001-api-authentication-strategy.md << 'EOF'
   # ADR-001: API Authentication Strategy
   
   **Status:** Proposed  
   **Date:** 2024-11-03  
   **Deciders:** Backend Team Lead, Security Team, Frontend Team Lead, DevOps Lead  
   **Technical Story:** Standardize authentication across all APIs
   
   ## Context and Problem Statement
   
   Our application currently uses multiple authentication methods across different services:
   - Session-based auth for web app
   - API keys for internal services  
   - Basic auth for admin tools
   
   This creates security inconsistencies, user experience problems, and maintenance overhead.
   We need a unified authentication strategy that works across all services and client types.
   
   ## Decision Drivers
   
   * Security: Must meet enterprise security requirements
   * Performance: Stateless preferred for scalability
   * Developer Experience: Simple integration for all teams
   * Mobile Support: Must work efficiently on mobile clients
   * Legacy Integration: Must work with existing systems during transition
   * Compliance: Must support audit trails and token revocation
   
   ## Considered Options
   
   * Option A: JWT with refresh tokens
   * Option B: OAuth 2.0 with PKCE
   * Option C: Session-based with Redis
   * Option D: API Gateway with token federation
   
   ## Decision Outcome
   
   **Chosen option:** "JWT with refresh tokens" with planned migration to OAuth 2.0
   
   ### Positive Consequences
   
   * Stateless authentication improves scalability
   * Works well across web, mobile, and API clients
   * Industry standard with good library support
   * Enables distributed architecture without shared session state
   
   ### Negative Consequences
   
   * Requires secure token storage on clients
   * Token revocation is more complex than sessions
   * Requires careful implementation to prevent security issues
   * Team needs training on JWT best practices
   
   ## Pros and Cons of the Options
   
   ### JWT with Refresh Tokens
   
   * ✅ Stateless and scalable
   * ✅ Works across all client types
   * ✅ Good performance (no database lookup for each request)
   * ✅ Industry standard with mature tooling
   * ❌ Complex token management on client side
   * ❌ Token revocation requires additional infrastructure
   * ❌ Potential security risks if not implemented correctly
   
   ### OAuth 2.0 with PKCE
   
   * ✅ Industry standard for authorization
   * ✅ Excellent security model
   * ✅ Good for third-party integrations
   * ❌ More complex to implement
   * ❌ Overhead for simple internal APIs
   * ❌ Requires additional OAuth provider infrastructure
   
   ### Session-based with Redis
   
   * ✅ Simple server-side token revocation
   * ✅ Team is familiar with this approach
   * ❌ Requires shared session store (Redis)
   * ❌ Not ideal for mobile clients
   * ❌ Scaling challenges with session affinity
   
   ### API Gateway with Token Federation
   
   * ✅ Centralized authentication logic
   * ✅ Can support multiple auth methods
   * ❌ Additional infrastructure complexity
   * ❌ Potential single point of failure
   * ❌ Vendor lock-in concerns
   
   ## Implementation Plan
   
   1. **Phase 1 (Week 1-2):** Implement JWT service and refresh token logic
   2. **Phase 2 (Week 3-4):** Migrate admin APIs to JWT
   3. **Phase 3 (Week 5-6):** Migrate web app with backward compatibility
   4. **Phase 4 (Week 7-8):** Migrate mobile apps
   5. **Phase 5 (Week 9-10):** Remove legacy auth methods
   
   ## Links
   
   * [JWT Best Practices Guide](internal-wiki/jwt-guide)
   * [Security Team Auth Requirements](security-docs/auth-reqs)
   * [Implementation Spike Results](github.com/org/auth-spike)
   EOF

2. Create decision facilitation framework:

   # Create structured decision meeting template
   cat > docs/decision-meeting-template.md << 'EOF'
   # Technical Decision Meeting: [Topic]
   
   **Date:** [Meeting Date]  
   **Facilitator:** [Lead/Decision Maker]  
   **Participants:** [List attendees and roles]  
   **Duration:** [Expected time - recommend 60-90 minutes max]
   
   ## Pre-Meeting Preparation
   
   ### Required Reading (send 48 hours before meeting)
   - [ ] Problem statement document
   - [ ] Proposed solution options
   - [ ] Evaluation criteria
   - [ ] Any relevant spike/prototype results
   
   ### Pre-Meeting Actions
   - [ ] All participants review materials
   - [ ] Stakeholders submit questions/concerns in advance
   - [ ] Options ranked by each participant (optional)
   
   ## Meeting Agenda
   
   ### 1. Context Review (10 minutes)
   - Facilitator presents problem statement
   - Clarify scope and constraints
   - Confirm decision drivers/criteria
   
   ### 2. Option Presentation (20 minutes)
   - Each option presented by advocate (5 minutes each)
   - Focus on how option addresses decision drivers
   - No debate/questions during presentation
   
   ### 3. Clarifying Questions (15 minutes)
   - Questions for understanding only
   - No advocacy or criticism
   - Facilitator ensures balanced participation
   
   ### 4. Evaluation Discussion (20 minutes)
   - Structured discussion of each criterion
   - Pros/cons for each option
   - Identify areas of agreement/disagreement
   
   ### 5. Decision Making (10 minutes)
   - Facilitator synthesizes discussion
   - Clear decision with reasoning
   - Next steps and implementation planning
   
   ### 6. Wrap-up (5 minutes)
   - Confirm decision understanding
   - Assign ADR documentation owner
   - Schedule any follow-up meetings
   
   ## Decision Rules
   
   1. **Consensus preferred** - aim for agreement from all stakeholders
   2. **Consultation required** - all voices heard and considered  
   3. **Decision authority clear** - facilitator makes final call if needed
   4. **Time-boxed** - decision made by end of meeting or escalated
   5. **Documented** - ADR created within 24 hours
   
   ## Conflict Resolution Escalation
   
   If consensus cannot be reached:
   1. **Table for spike** - create small experiment to gather data
   2. **Escalate to senior leadership** - involve architect/CTO
   3. **Split decision** - parallel implementation with evaluation period
   4. **Default to simpler option** - reduce risk when unclear
   
   EOF

3. Practice facilitating a technical decision:

   # Simulate a decision meeting with documented outcome
   cat > docs/adr/002-database-migration-strategy.md << 'EOF'
   # ADR-002: Database Migration Strategy
   
   **Status:** Accepted  
   **Date:** 2024-11-03  
   **Deciders:** Backend Team, DevOps Team, DBA, Product Owner  
   **Technical Story:** Need to migrate from MySQL to PostgreSQL for better JSON support
   
   ## Meeting Summary
   
   **Facilitator:** Senior Backend Developer  
   **Decision Method:** Consensus after structured evaluation  
   **Key Concerns Addressed:** Zero-downtime requirement, data integrity, rollback capability
   
   ## Context and Problem Statement
   
   Current MySQL database lacks advanced JSON operations needed for new features.
   PostgreSQL offers better JSON support, but migration must be zero-downtime for
   production system serving 10M+ requests/day.
   
   ## Decision Drivers
   
   * **Zero Downtime:** No service interruption during migration
   * **Data Integrity:** No data loss during transition  
   * **Rollback Capability:** Ability to revert if issues arise
   * **Team Expertise:** Current team capabilities and training needs
   * **Timeline:** Must complete within 6-week window
   * **Testing:** Comprehensive validation before production
   
   ## Decision Outcome
   
   **Chosen option:** "Dual-write with read migration" 
   
   ### Implementation Phases
   
   1. **Dual-write setup** - Write to both MySQL and PostgreSQL
   2. **Data backfill** - Historical data migration with validation
   3. **Read migration** - Gradually shift reads to PostgreSQL  
   4. **Cleanup** - Remove MySQL after validation period
   
   ### Why This Decision
   
   The team reached consensus after evaluating 4 approaches:
   - **Dump/restore:** Rejected due to downtime requirement
   - **Replication-based:** Rejected due to complexity and MySQL→PostgreSQL limitations
   - **Application-level dual-write:** **Selected** for safety and rollback capability
   - **Blue/green deployment:** Rejected due to data synchronization complexity
   
   ### Lessons from Decision Process
   
   - Pre-meeting spike work was crucial for informed discussion
   - Having clear criteria prevented endless debate
   - DBA expertise was essential for understanding migration risks
   - Time-boxing forced focus on practical solutions over perfect ones
   
   EOF
   
   # Create conflict resolution log
   cat > CONFLICT_LOG.md << 'EOF'
   # Technical Conflict Resolution Log
   
   ## Resolved Conflicts
   
   ### 2024-11-03: Database Migration Approach
   **Conflict:** DevOps preferred blue/green, Backend preferred dual-write, DBA concerned about both
   **Resolution Method:** Structured decision meeting with ADR
   **Outcome:** Consensus on dual-write approach after risk analysis
   **Key Success Factor:** Pre-meeting technical spike provided objective data
   
   ### 2024-11-01: Authentication Strategy  
   **Conflict:** Security team wanted OAuth, Frontend team preferred JWT, Mobile team needed simplicity
   **Resolution Method:** Phased approach with future migration path
   **Outcome:** JWT now, OAuth migration planned for Q2
   **Key Success Factor:** Acknowledging all teams' constraints and creating migration timeline
   
   ## Active Conflicts
   
   ### Performance vs Security Trade-off
   **Issue:** API response times vs comprehensive audit logging  
   **Status:** Spike in progress to measure actual performance impact
   **Next Step:** Decision meeting scheduled for 2024-11-10
   
   ## Conflict Prevention Strategies
   
   1. **Early Architecture Reviews:** Catch conflicts before implementation
   2. **Cross-team Design Sessions:** Involve multiple perspectives in planning
   3. **Regular Tech Debt Reviews:** Address accumulating conflicts before they escalate
   4. **Clear Decision Authority:** Establish who makes final calls for different types of decisions
   
   EOF

Scenario: Design and implement a comprehensive conflict prevention and early warning system

1. Create conflict monitoring dashboard:

   # Set up automated conflict detection
   cat > monitor-conflicts.sh << 'EOF'
   #!/bin/bash
   # Conflict monitoring script for early warning
   
   echo "🚨 Team Conflict Monitoring Report - $(date)"
   echo "========================================"
   
   # Check merge conflict frequency
   echo "📊 MERGE CONFLICT ANALYSIS"
   echo "Recent merge conflicts (last 30 days):"
   git log --oneline --grep="Merge.*conflict" --since="30 days ago" | wc -l | \
     xargs echo "Total conflict resolutions:"
   
   echo ""
   echo "Conflicts by team (based on branch names):"
   git log --oneline --grep="Merge.*conflict" --since="30 days ago" | \
     grep -oE "feature/[a-z]+-" | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
   
   # Check code review health
   echo ""
   echo "📋 CODE REVIEW HEALTH"
   echo "Long-running PRs (>7 days old):"
   gh pr list --json createdAt,title,number | \
     jq -r '.[] | select((.createdAt | fromdateiso8601) < (now - 604800)) | 
       "PR #\(.number): \(.title) (\((now - (.createdAt | fromdateiso8601))/86400 | floor) days old)"'
   
   echo ""
   echo "PRs with many review iterations (>5 review cycles):"
   gh pr list --json number,title,reviews | \
     jq -r '.[] | select((.reviews | length) > 5) | 
       "PR #\(.number): \(.title) (\(.reviews | length) reviews)"'
   
   # Check cross-team dependencies
   echo ""
   echo "🔗 CROSS-TEAM DEPENDENCY ANALYSIS"
   echo "Open issues labeled as cross-team blockers:"
   gh issue list --label "cross-team,blocker" --json number,title,assignees | \
     jq -r '.[] | "Issue #\(.number): \(.title) (Assigned: \(.assignees[].login // "unassigned"))"'
   
   # Check communication patterns
   echo ""
   echo "💬 COMMUNICATION PATTERNS"
   echo "Recent architecture decisions (ADRs):"
   find docs/adr -name "*.md" -newer $(date -d '30 days ago' +%Y-%m-%d) | wc -l | \
     xargs echo "New ADRs in last 30 days:"
   
   echo ""
   echo "Teams mentioned in recent commits:"
   git log --oneline --since="7 days ago" | \
     grep -oE '\[([a-z]+)\]' | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
   
   echo ""
   echo "⚠️  EARLY WARNING INDICATORS"
   # Check for potential conflict indicators
   RECENT_CONFLICTS=$(git log --oneline --grep="Merge.*conflict" --since="7 days ago" | wc -l)
   if [ $RECENT_CONFLICTS -gt 3 ]; then
       echo "🚨 HIGH: Increased merge conflicts this week ($RECENT_CONFLICTS)"
   fi
   
   LONG_PRS=$(gh pr list --json createdAt | \
     jq '[.[] | select((.createdAt | fromdateiso8601) < (now - 604800))] | length')
   if [ $LONG_PRS -gt 5 ]; then
       echo "🚨 MEDIUM: Many long-running PRs may indicate integration issues ($LONG_PRS PRs >7 days)"
   fi
   
   CROSS_TEAM_BLOCKERS=$(gh issue list --label "cross-team,blocker" --json number | jq 'length')
   if [ $CROSS_TEAM_BLOCKERS -gt 2 ]; then
       echo "🚨 MEDIUM: Multiple cross-team blockers may indicate coordination issues ($CROSS_TEAM_BLOCKERS blockers)"
   fi
   
   echo ""
   echo "📈 RECOMMENDATIONS"
   if [ $RECENT_CONFLICTS -gt 3 ]; then
       echo "- Schedule cross-team sync to discuss integration approaches"
       echo "- Review and update branching strategy documentation"
   fi
   if [ $LONG_PRS -gt 5 ]; then
       echo "- Implement smaller PR size limits or break down large features"
       echo "- Review team capacity and review assignment processes"  
   fi
   if [ $CROSS_TEAM_BLOCKERS -gt 2 ]; then
       echo "- Escalate dependency planning to leadership level"
       echo "- Consider dedicated cross-team coordination role"
   fi
   
   EOF
   
   chmod +x monitor-conflicts.sh

2. Create proactive collaboration framework:

   # Set up regular cross-team coordination
   cat > docs/collaboration-framework.md << 'EOF'
   # Cross-Team Collaboration Framework
   
   ## Regular Coordination Rituals
   
   ### Weekly Cross-Team Sync (30 minutes)
   **Attendees:** Lead from each team + rotating team members  
   **Agenda:**
   - Upcoming cross-team dependencies (5 min)
   - Architectural decisions pending/made (10 min)  
   - Integration challenges and solutions (10 min)
   - Next week's coordination needs (5 min)
   
   **Preparation:** Each team provides 1-slide update on cross-team impacts
   
   ### Monthly Architecture Review (90 minutes)
   **Attendees:** Senior developers + architects from all teams  
   **Purpose:** Review and align on major architectural decisions  
   **Format:**
   - Review new ADRs and their cross-team impacts (30 min)
   - Deep dive on one major architectural topic (45 min)
   - Planning upcoming major changes (15 min)
   
   ### Quarterly Team Exchange (Half day)
   **Purpose:** Build relationships and share knowledge across teams  
   **Activities:**
   - Team showcase presentations (each team shares recent innovations)
   - Cross-team pairing sessions
   - Informal lunch and networking
   - Retrospective on cross-team collaboration
   
   ## Conflict Prevention Protocols
   
   ### Early Warning Triggers
   When any of these conditions occur, schedule immediate coordination session:
   - Merge conflicts increasing (>3 in one week between same teams)
   - PR review discussions exceeding 10 comments without resolution
   - Cross-team issues open >5 days without progress
   - Teams developing similar solutions independently
   
   ### Proactive Communication Rules
   1. **Major Changes:** Announce to all teams 48 hours before starting
   2. **API Changes:** Require cross-team review before implementation  
   3. **Shared Code:** Notify owners before modifying shared components
   4. **Breaking Changes:** Create migration guide and coordinate timeline
   
   ### Decision Escalation Matrix
   | Decision Type | Normal Authority | Escalation Trigger | Escalation Path |
   |---------------|------------------|-------------------|-----------------|
   | Team Process | Team Lead | Cross-team impact | Department Lead |
   | API Design | Senior Developer | Breaking change | Architecture Team |
   | Infrastructure | DevOps Lead | Multi-team impact | CTO |
   | Security | Security Team | Business impact | CISO + CTO |
   
   ## Psychological Safety Practices
   
   ### Meeting Facilitation Guidelines
   - Start with appreciation/wins from other teams
   - Use "Yes, and..." instead of "No, but..." when building on ideas
   - Ask "What would need to be true for this to work?" instead of listing why it won't
   - End with clear next steps and owners
   
   ### Conflict De-escalation Techniques
   1. **Acknowledge emotions:** "I can see this is frustrating..."  
   2. **Clarify intent:** "Help me understand what you're trying to achieve..."
   3. **Find common ground:** "We both want the system to be reliable..."
   4. **Focus on future:** "What would a good outcome look like?"
   
   ### Communication Guidelines
   - **Assume positive intent:** People want to do good work and help the project succeed
   - **Ask questions:** Instead of statements, ask questions to understand perspective
   - **Share context:** Explain not just what you want, but why it matters
   - **Acknowledge constraints:** Recognize that everyone has limitations and pressures
   
   EOF

3. Implement team health monitoring:

   # Create team collaboration health survey
   cat > team-health-survey.md << 'EOF'
   # Monthly Team Collaboration Health Survey
   
   ## Cross-Team Relationship Assessment
   
   Rate each area from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent):
   
   ### Communication Quality
   - [ ] We clearly communicate our team's needs to other teams
   - [ ] Other teams communicate their needs clearly to us  
   - [ ] We have effective channels for cross-team coordination
   - [ ] Conflicts are addressed promptly and constructively
   
   ### Collaboration Effectiveness  
   - [ ] We collaborate well on shared components and APIs
   - [ ] Cross-team code reviews are constructive and timely
   - [ ] We successfully coordinate on complex features
   - [ ] Integration between teams happens smoothly
   
   ### Conflict Resolution
   - [ ] Technical disagreements are resolved fairly
   - [ ] We have good processes for making cross-team decisions
   - [ ] People feel safe to disagree and discuss alternatives
   - [ ] Conflicts lead to better solutions, not resentment
   
   ### Relationship Quality
   - [ ] There is trust and respect between teams
   - [ ] Teams help each other succeed rather than competing
   - [ ] We share knowledge and expertise across teams
   - [ ] People enjoy working with members of other teams
   
   ## Open Feedback
   
   **What's working well in cross-team collaboration?**
   _[Free text response]_
   
   **What's the biggest collaboration challenge right now?**
   _[Free text response]_
   
   **What would you change to improve cross-team relationships?**
   _[Free text response]_
   
   **Any cross-team conflicts you're concerned about?**
   _[Free text response - anonymous option]_
   
   ## Action Items
   
   Based on responses, leadership will:
   1. Address any immediate collaboration issues
   2. Update collaboration processes based on feedback
   3. Share overall results and improvement plans with all teams
   4. Schedule follow-up conversations for specific concerns
   
   EOF
   
   # Create team health dashboard
   cat > analyze-team-health.sh << 'EOF'
   #!/bin/bash
   # Analyze team collaboration patterns for health indicators
   
   echo "🏥 TEAM COLLABORATION HEALTH DASHBOARD"
   echo "====================================="
   echo "Report Date: $(date)"
   echo ""
   
   # Analyze communication patterns
   echo "📞 COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS"
   echo "Cross-team mentions in commits (last 30 days):"
   git log --oneline --since="30 days ago" | \
     grep -i -E "frontend|backend|mobile|devops|data|qa" | \
     wc -l | xargs echo "Commits mentioning other teams:"
   
   echo ""
   echo "Teams collaborating on PRs:"
   gh pr list --state all --limit 50 --json assignees,reviewRequests | \
     jq -r '.[] | (.assignees[].login // "unassigned") as $assignee | 
       (.reviewRequests[]?.requestedReviewer?.login // empty) as $reviewer | 
       "\($assignee) ← \($reviewer)"' | \
     sort | uniq -c | sort -nr | head -5
   
   # Check integration health  
   echo ""
   echo "🔧 INTEGRATION HEALTH"
   echo "Successful integrations (merges to main):"
   git log --oneline main --since="7 days ago" --merges | wc -l
   
   echo "Failed integration attempts (reverted merges):"
   git log --oneline main --since="30 days ago" --grep="Revert" | wc -l
   
   # Team responsiveness
   echo ""
   echo "⏱️  RESPONSIVENESS METRICS"  
   echo "Average time from PR creation to first review:"
   gh pr list --state closed --limit 20 --json createdAt,reviews | \
     jq -r '.[] | select(.reviews | length > 0) | 
       ((.reviews[0].submittedAt | fromdateiso8601) - (.createdAt | fromdateiso8601)) / 3600' | \
     awk '{sum+=$1; count++} END {printf "%.1f hours\n", sum/count}'
   
   echo ""
   echo "🎯 HEALTH SCORE SUMMARY"
   # Calculate simple health score based on key metrics
   CONFLICTS_WEEK=$(git log --oneline --grep="conflict" --since="7 days ago" | wc -l)
   REVERTS_MONTH=$(git log --oneline main --since="30 days ago" --grep="Revert" | wc -l)
   CROSS_TEAM_MENTIONS=$(git log --oneline --since="7 days ago" | \
     grep -i -E "frontend|backend|mobile|devops" | wc -l)
   
   HEALTH_SCORE=$((100 - (CONFLICTS_WEEK * 10) - (REVERTS_MONTH * 15)))
   if [ $CROSS_TEAM_MENTIONS -gt 10 ]; then
       HEALTH_SCORE=$((HEALTH_SCORE + 10))  # Bonus for good cross-team communication
   fi
   
   echo "Overall Collaboration Health Score: $HEALTH_SCORE/100"
   
   if [ $HEALTH_SCORE -lt 70 ]; then
       echo "🚨 ATTENTION NEEDED - Consider intervention strategies"
   elif [ $HEALTH_SCORE -lt 85 ]; then
       echo "⚠️  MONITORING RECOMMENDED - Watch for improvement trends"  
   else
       echo "✅ HEALTHY - Maintain current collaboration patterns"
   fi
   
   EOF
   
   chmod +x analyze-team-health.sh
   ./analyze-team-health.sh