How do we schedule integration between teams with different iteration lengths?
Cadence integration mismatchCoordinate around interface readiness and shared test windows rather than forcing every team onto one iteration length. Make dependency dates and evidence explicit.
What to do now
- Map cross-team deliverables
- Agree integration-ready conditions
- Reserve shared test windows
- Review forecast changes before the handoff
When to escalate
Escalate when
A mismatch threatens the integrated release or critical dependency.
Who decides
The delivery owner and relevant governance authority
Example
Two-week and three-week teams agree a common integration checkpoint with versioned interface evidence.
Mistake to avoid
Assuming identical sprint dates would solve all interface problems.
Prevent a repeat
Check whether governance decisions use real delivery evidence rather than forcing incompatible reporting rituals.
Suggested ApprovedFlow setup
- Projects
- Tasks
- Documents
- Approvals
Keep decision milestones and iterative task work connected, with explicit evidence required at each approved gate. See the platform
Related cases
- Agile teams work iteratively, but governance demands a fixed detailed plan. How can both work?Planning-level mismatch
- A construction schedule and a software backlog must align. How do we coordinate them?Different delivery cadences
- The same data means different things in connected systems. How do we resolve it?Semantic data mismatch
- Incidents bounce between vendor, IT, and business teams. How do we stop that?Unclear incident coordination