| Course | MGT 571 Staffing, Leading and Controlling for Agile Environments (MGT/571) |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Control system and metrics design |
| Length | about 1,177 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MGT 571 Week 5
Controlling Without Slowing Down: Designing Controls and Agile Metrics for Tippecanoe's Product Teams
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
MGT/571: Staffing, Leading and Controlling for Agile Environments
Week 5 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tippecanoe Orthopedic Systems and all metrics are composites written for a model paper.
Agile teams at the composite device firm Tippecanoe now build its surgical planning software and instruments. Its first control system measured each team's sprint goal completion and velocity, the number of story points completed per sprint, and reported both to executives weekly. After a developer falsified test results to meet a sprint goal, leaders recognized that the control system was encouraging the wrong behavior. Every measure sends a message about what matters, and when the message is finish more points, people will find ways to finish more points. This paper designs better controls and metrics.
Why Agile Teams Still Need Control
Agile teams need freedom to decide how to work, but organizations still need to know whether teams are delivering value, managing risk and meeting regulatory obligations. The goal is control that guides and informs rather than control that dictates every step.
Four Levers of Control
Simons (1995) described four levers of control: belief systems that communicate purpose and values, boundary systems that set limits on acceptable behavior, diagnostic control systems that track performance against targets and interactive control systems through which leaders engage teams in discussing uncertainties. Effective control balances all four.
Belief Systems
Tippecanoe's belief system centers on patient safety and surgeon trust. Leaders will repeat in sprint reviews and team meetings that safety and documentation integrity come before speed. Purpose statements will appear on every team's board.
Boundary Systems
Boundaries define what teams may not do: release software without completed verification, change requirements without traceability, use real patient data in testing or alter test records. These boundaries are absolute and enforced, giving teams freedom within clear limits.
Diagnostic Controls: What Changes
Velocity and sprint completion will no longer be reported to executives or used as targets. Velocity remains a team planning tool. Diagnostic measures will focus on outcomes and system health instead.
Flow Metrics
Forsgren et al. (2018), drawing on surveys of thousands of technology professionals, found that delivery performance measured by lead time, deployment frequency, time to restore service and change failure rate was associated with organizational performance. Tippecanoe will track lead time from approved requirement to verified feature, work in progress per team and how often work waits for reviews.
Quality and Compliance Metrics
Quality metrics include defects found after verification, documentation completeness at each design review and the share of tests verified by automated logs. Compliance metrics include open corrective actions and audit findings.
Value Metrics
Value metrics show whether work matters to users: surgeon adoption of new planning features, surgeon satisfaction scores and the time from surgeon request to available feature.
Team Health Metrics
A short quarterly survey measures psychological safety, workload and clarity of goals. Team health predicts future delivery and helps leaders spot pressure before it leads to shortcuts.
Built-In Compliance Controls
The development tools will enforce compliance: a feature cannot be marked done until linked tests run automatically and pass, traceability links are complete and a quality engineer has reviewed documentation. These controls replace self-reported status.
The Risks of Monitoring
Bernstein (2012) found in a factory study that workers under constant observation concealed useful deviations and improvements, while some privacy improved productivity. Team-level metrics will be visible to teams first and aggregated for leaders, and individual developers will not be ranked.
Anticipating Gaming
Each metric could be gamed: lead time by splitting work into tiny pieces, defect counts by not reporting defects, survey scores by social pressure. Leaders will look at metrics together, discuss them with teams rather than reward them directly and change measures that become distorted.
Interactive Controls
Interactive control happens in quarterly reviews where leaders and teams discuss the biggest uncertainties, such as surgeon adoption of new tools or regulatory changes. These conversations guide strategy and resource shifts rather than judging teams.
Using the Metrics in Practice
Measures are only as good as the conversations they support. In each sprint retrospective, teams will look at their own lead time, defects and health scores and choose one improvement for the next sprint. Monthly, product owners will review value metrics with surgeon advisers. Quarterly, leaders will discuss the portfolio dashboard with teams present. When a measure looks bad, the first question will be what is causing it, not who is responsible, which keeps the metrics useful rather than threatening.
Financial Controls
Agile teams still operate within budgets. Instead of approving each project in detail upfront, Tippecanoe will fund teams as persistent units with quarterly budgets and review spending against the value metrics each quarter. A team that delivers features surgeons do not adopt will have its priorities reconsidered before its budget grows. This approach, sometimes called funding teams rather than projects, gives flexibility while keeping spending tied to results.
Risk Controls
Some risks require specific controls beyond metrics. Cybersecurity reviews will occur before each software release that touches patient data. A product safety risk file, required for medical devices, will be updated within the sprint whenever a design change could affect risk. The regulatory specialist on each team owns these updates, and the quality director audits a sample each quarter.
Portfolio-Level Controls
Executives will see a portfolio dashboard showing each team's value, quality, flow and health metrics, budget status and major risks. They will steer by adjusting priorities and resources at quarterly planning, not by directing daily work.
A Sample Dashboard
The team dashboard shows lead time, work in progress, escaped defects, documentation completeness, surgeon adoption and the latest team health score, each with a trend line. The portfolio dashboard shows the same measures across teams, with risks and decisions needed.
Comparing Old and New Controls
Under the old system, executives saw two numbers per team and asked why they were low. Under the new one, they see a balanced picture and ask what the team needs. In the first two months after the change, one instrument team's lead time rose because quality reviews moved inside the sprint, but escaped defects fell to zero and documentation was complete at the design review for the first time. Leaders treated the longer lead time as an acceptable cost of better quality and asked the team how to shorten review waits, rather than demanding faster sprints.
What Teams Said
A short survey after the change found that 78 percent of team members felt the new measures reflected their work better, and several said they no longer felt pressure to mark work done early. Two developers worried that lead time could become the new velocity, a fair concern that the six-month metric review will watch.
Reviewing the Metrics
Every six months, a small group of team members, quality leaders and managers will review whether each metric still helps and whether any is causing harm, adjusting the set as needed.
Conclusion
Tippecanoe's original controls rewarded speed alone and contributed to falsified test results. A system built on Simons's four levers, with beliefs about safety, firm boundaries, balanced metrics for flow, quality, value and health, built-in compliance and interactive reviews, gives teams freedom while protecting patients and the company.
References
Bernstein, E. S. (2012). The transparency paradox: A role for privacy in organizational learning and operational control. Administrative Science Quarterly, 57(2), 181-216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212453028
Forsgren, N., Humble, J., & Kim, G. (2018). Accelerate: The science of lean software and DevOps. IT Revolution Press.
Simons, R. (1995). Levers of control: How managers use innovative control systems to drive strategic renewal. Harvard Business School Press.
What the MGT 571 Week 5 instructions ask
Week 5 of MGT 571 generally has graduate students build a control system and metric set suited to agile work. Typical requirements include the purpose of control in agile settings, types of controls such as beliefs, boundaries, diagnostic and interactive systems, agile metrics for flow, quality, value and team health, the risks of measurement such as gaming, compliance and risk controls and how leaders will use the information. Some prompts ask for a dashboard. Choose measures that teams can influence, explain how each will be used, anticipate side effects and cite sources in APA format. A sample dashboard, even a simple table, helps show how the measures fit together.
How this MGT 571 Week 5 example is built
After a developer falsified test results to meet a sprint goal, Tippecanoe learned that its single focus on sprint completion was a poor control, and the paper replaces it. A framework of four levers frames the design: shared values, firm boundaries, diagnostic measures and interactive discussion. Velocity is removed as a target. Team metrics cover flow, such as lead time and work in progress, quality, such as escaped defects and documentation completeness, value, such as surgeon adoption, and health, such as psychological safety. Quality controls are automated into the workflow. A portfolio dashboard lets leaders steer without micromanaging, and the paper explains who sees each measure and how gaming will be watched.
MGT 571 Week 5 grading rubric: where the points go
Strong control papers show that the writer understands control as enabling as well as constraining. Faculty credit use of a control framework, a balanced set of metrics across flow, quality, value and team health, explicit discussion of how each metric is used and could be gamed, built-in compliance controls for regulated work and a clear distinction between team-level and portfolio-level control. Using research on measurement effects shows depth. A sample dashboard and APA references complete the work. Faculty also notice whether the design explains who sees which measures, since metrics shared first with teams for learning behave differently from metrics reported upward for judgment, and whether there is a plan to retire measures that stop helping.
MGT 571 Week 5 help: mistakes to avoid
Students often recommend velocity or story points as performance targets. Explain why that invites gaming. Another frequent gap is a long list of metrics with no explanation of how they will be used. Limit the set and describe the decisions each supports. Students also forget compliance controls in regulated settings. Build them into the workflow. Avoid monitoring that undermines trust. Distinguish team learning metrics from leadership oversight. Explain what happens when a measure looks bad. Finally, plan to review the metrics themselves, since any measure loses value once people start optimizing for it. Ask teams which measures help them and which feel like surveillance.
Related MGT 571 sample papers
Other MGT 571 week samples
- MGT 571 Week 1: Agile Environments
- MGT 571 Week 2: Staffing for Agility
- MGT 571 Week 3: Leading Teams Through Change
- MGT 571 Week 4: Legal and Ethical Considerations
- MGT 571 Week 6: Strategic Execution
More MBA sample papers
- MGT 521 Week 5: Team Recommendation Presentation
- MGT 526 Week 5: Decision Memo to a Decision Maker
- MGT 566 Week 5: Developing Contingency Plans
- MGT 576 Week 5: Alliances and Acquisitions
MGT 571 Week 5 questions, answered
What does MGT 571 Week 5 usually cover?
It usually covers controls and metrics for agile organizations: control frameworks, flow, quality, value and team health metrics, compliance controls, risks of measurement and how leaders use dashboards.
Where can I find a free MGT 571 Week 5 sample paper?
This page contains a complete agile control and metrics design for a medical device company, with a dashboard and notes. A free starting draft of your own metrics paper can be requested.
Why shouldn't velocity be a performance target?
Velocity reflects a team's own estimates, so making it a target encourages inflating estimates or cutting quality to complete more points, which defeats its purpose as a planning aid.
What are flow metrics?
Measures of how work moves through a system, such as lead time from request to delivery, cycle time, throughput and work in progress, used to find bottlenecks and improve predictability.
What are Simons's levers of control?
Belief systems, boundary systems, diagnostic control systems and interactive control systems, which together balance innovation and freedom with oversight and limits.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All MGT 571 week samples · All courses