ITP Data Flows S2: make teamwork workshop standalone with job board scenario#1843
Draft
omkarv wants to merge 3 commits intoCodeYourFuture:mainfrom
Draft
ITP Data Flows S2: make teamwork workshop standalone with job board scenario#1843omkarv wants to merge 3 commits intoCodeYourFuture:mainfrom
omkarv wants to merge 3 commits intoCodeYourFuture:mainfrom
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for cyf-curriculum ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify project configuration. |
👷 Deploy request for cyf-common pending review.Visit the deploys page to approve it
|
illicitonion
approved these changes
May 8, 2026
Member
illicitonion
left a comment
illicitonion
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM, thank you so much!
It looks like this contains #1842 as well? Happy to merge either or both! Just one comment - let me know what you think :)
| {{<tabs name="Teamwork Project Sprint 2" >}} | ||
|
|
||
| ===[[Prep & Introduction]]=== | ||
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WDYT about:
Suggested change
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes | |
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes (for this section - 90 minutes for the whole workshop) |
To avoid someone thing the whole workshop is 15 minutes?
| {{<tabs name="Teamwork Project Sprint 3" >}} | ||
|
|
||
| ===[[👉🏽 PD Session]]=== | ||
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
WDYT about:
Suggested change
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes | |
| ⏱️ **Time:** 15 minutes (for this section - 90 minutes for the whole workshop) |
To avoid someone thing the whole workshop is 15 minutes?
github-project-automation
Bot
moved this from 📋 Backlog
to 👀 In review
in Curriculum Planning
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The Sprint 2 teamwork workshop had a broken cross-sprint dependency. Exercise 2 referenced "the product your team defined in the previous week", but Sprint 1 never defines a product. This PR makes the session fully standalone and sharpens the product/BA framing that is the focus of this sprint.
Full context in this Slack thread:
https://codeyourfutur-yov6609.slack.com/archives/C07U0V5A51R/p1776165328432989
Note on scenario choice: The original workshop used the library project, which ties to the Book Library coding exercise trainees do in Sprint 2. This PR switches to a job board scenario to reduce overlap with the Sprint 3 workshop which also uses the library. Happy to revert to the library if the team prefers continuity, the structural improvements (standalone framing, timings, prioritisation focus, wrap-up) apply either way.
1. Fix cross-sprint dependency
Replaced "the product your team defined in the previous week" with an explicit scenario: a job board for people looking for their first role in tech. The scenario is intentionally different from the library website used in Sprint 3 so each session feels distinct.
2. Reframe the introduction around the product/BA lens
The original intro ("we move from theoretical concepts to defining the core of your specific project") implied prior context. The new intro sets the scene: before any code is written, product managers and business analysts work with stakeholders to understand what to build and why.
3. Richer user definition in Exercise 2
Updated the discussion prompts to reflect the job board scenario with more varied user types (first-time jobseeker, recruiter, hiring manager). Added two questions that push into BA thinking: "How might those needs conflict?" and "Which users matter most for your MVP?"
4. Add prioritisation to Exercise 3
Added a step asking teams to pick their top three MVP features and defend the choice. Gives the peer review something more concrete to push back on, and mirrors real product decision-making.
5. Add a break and a wrap-up tab
Added a 15-minute break after Exercise 2, and a wrap-up tab with volunteer discussion prompts focused on product/BA practice (user research, stakeholder disagreements, roadmap decisions).