Working Under Direct Guidance

Guidance-Seeking in Practice

A.An OFA 1 was unsure whether a stakeholder's comment about wanting "more flexibility" in a scheduling tool meant a specific feature or a general sentiment.
B.Rather than guessing or asking "what should I do," the OFA brought the specific quote, two possible interpretations, and a recommendation for which seemed more likely, and asked the supervisor to confirm or correct the interpretation.
C.The supervisor was able to respond in under a minute: "Your second read is right - go with that," rather than needing to reconstruct the ambiguity from scratch.

D.How is this different from simply asking "what should I do about this comment"?
E.Why might a manager find this version of asking for guidance easier to respond to?
F.What would have happened to the supervisor's time, and to the pace of the work, if the OFA had brought only the raw quote with no interpretation attempted?

G.Working under direct guidance does not mean deferring every decision without first thinking it through.
H.Bringing a specific question with a proposed interpretation, not an open-ended "what do I do," respects the OFA's own developing judgment and the manager's time, and is the clearest single demonstration of this module's central skill.

II.

A.An OFA noticed a stakeholder's requirements note seemed to conflict with an earlier decision, and sent the supervisor a message that just said, "Hey, can we talk about the workstream requirements? Something seems off."
B.The supervisor, with no specifics to go on, had to schedule a separate call just to find out what the actual concern was, then ask several follow-up questions before understanding the conflict well enough to help.
C.What could have been resolved in a two-line message instead cost both people a scheduled meeting and delayed the work by two days.

D.What information was missing that the supervisor had to ask for anyway?
E.How would rewriting this as a well-formed question, using the template from earlier in this module, have changed the outcome?

F.An open-ended flag ("something seems off") puts all of the diagnostic work back on the supervisor, even though the OFA was the one with the most context.
G.The cost of a vague question is not just the supervisor's time - it is the delay to the work itself while the real issue gets untangled.

III.

1.Scenario Context
a.The learner is given a short, realistic scenario containing a genuine ambiguity, for example, a stakeholder request that could reasonably be read two different ways, or a task with an instruction that seems to conflict with something learned earlier.
2.Required OFA Reasoning
a.Identify the specific ambiguity, generate at least two reasonable interpretations or options, and form a tentative recommendation for which is more likely correct.
3.Required Output
a.A written question addressed to a supervisor, following the well-formed question template — the specific issue, the options considered, and a recommendation.

1.Strong Performance Indicators
a.The issue is stated specifically, not vaguely ("something about this seems off").
b.At least two real options are named, not just one option and an implied "or something else."
c.A recommendation is offered, with a brief reason, even if the learner is not fully confident in it.
2.Weak Performance Indicators
a.The question is open-ended ("what should I do?") with no options or recommendation offered.
b.Only one option is considered, with no acknowledgment that another reading exists.
c.The recommendation, if offered, has no stated reasoning behind it.

IV.

1.Scenario
a.While reviewing legacy ward spreadsheets ahead of a migration, the learner finds a small number of records with a date format that does not match any pattern seen elsewhere, and is not sure whether to treat them as errors or as a legitimate but unfamiliar format.
2.Task
a.Bring a well-formed question to the migration lead·state the specific records and pattern found, note the two most likely explanations, and offer a tentative recommendation for which is more likely.
3.Deliverable
a.A written question following the well-formed question template.
4.Evaluation Notes
a.The learner does not simply forward the confusing records with no framing, and does not silently guess and reformat them without asking.

1.Scenario
a.A stake youth leader mentions, almost in passing during a feedback session, that "some families won't have this problem anyway" when discussing a proposed RSVP capacity limit - a comment that could reveal an important edge case or could be an offhand remark with no real implication.
2.Task
a.Decide whether this comment needs to be escalated to the feature lead, and if so, escalate it with what was said, why it might matter, and a specific question rather than just relaying the quote.
3.Deliverable
a.A brief written escalation or a decision not to escalate, with reasoning either way.
4.Evaluation Notes
a.The learner does not automatically escalate every offhand comment (over-asking), but also does not dismiss a comment that could reveal a real edge case without at least a moment of real consideration (under-asking).

1.Scenario
a.During a room reservation and calendar integration project, the learner notices that two different colleagues have described the conflict-detection requirement slightly differently in separate conversations, and is not sure whether this is a real disagreement or just imprecise phrasing.
2.Task
a.Raise this to a supervisor at the next check-in, framing it factually and specifically rather than as "these two people disagree," and propose which reading seems more consistent with what has already been documented.
3.Deliverable
a.A written note prepared for the check-in, following the well-formed question structure.
4.Evaluation Notes
a.The note is framed around the substance of the discrepancy, not around either colleague personally, and is raised at the next check-in rather than sat on until it becomes a bigger problem.