Two accountabilities held by the wrong people, one reordering work and one writing reviews, and the damage each does, carry this MT247 Unit 3 analysis of an app team. Searches like "mt 247 unit 3 assignment example", "mt247 unit 3 sample" and "mt247 unit 3 example" land here.
What a finished MT247 Unit 3 role analysis looks like
A roles table with six columns opens the five pages: accountability, the 2020 Guide's wording, who holds it on paper, who holds it in practice, the symptom observed and its consequence. The Product Owner row shows a resident experience manager named to the role and a vice president who overrides her ordering by email two or three times a Sprint. The Scrum Master row shows the software development manager, who also approves the developers' time off and writes their reviews. The Developers row shows five people who select no work of their own. Two analysis sections follow, one per misplaced authority, each tracing symptom to cause. A recommendations section closes with three changes, what each would cost the people who currently hold the authority, and what the team should see within two Sprints.
How a MT247 Unit 3 example is structured
Each accountability is stated first in the Guide's own terms, so the gap between intended and actual can be measured against a source rather than an opinion. Symptoms are then traced backward to a cause. Backlog churn and abandoned Sprint Goals lead to the vice president, whose authority over operations lets him overrule a Product Owner the Guide says the organization must respect. Silent Daily Scrums lead to the development manager, since developers are unlikely to raise a problem in front of the person who rates them. The analysis keeps these two failures apart because they need different remedies. Recommendations address authority directly: the vice president's requests route through the Product Owner and the Sprint Review, and the Scrum Master accountability moves to someone without line authority. Each recommendation states who gives something up, since a change that costs nobody anything is rarely a real change.
On paper against in practice
Every accountability appears twice in the opening table, once as assigned and once as observed, so the misplacement is visible before any argument begins.
A Product Owner who can be overruled
The resident experience manager orders the backlog; the vice president reorders it by email after planning, two or three times a Sprint, and the Sprint Goal goes with it.
A Scrum Master who writes reviews
The development manager also approves time off and rates each developer yearly, so the Daily Scrum becomes a report to the boss and impediments go unspoken.
Developers who pick nothing
Tasks arrive already assigned by name, which removes the self-management the Guide gives the Developers over how the Sprint's work gets done.
Separate failures, separate remedies
Executive requests routed through the Product Owner and the Sprint Review; the Scrum Master accountability moved to someone who rates nobody on the team.
Who gives something up
The vice president loses direct access to the developers and the manager loses his morning status report, both stated plainly beside what each gains in return.
Where marks go in MT247 Unit 3
A description of the three accountabilities as the Guide defines them, with no scenario applied, earns little here, since the question is what goes wrong once decision rights land with the wrong person. Diagnosing every problem as a training need misses the point that people with authority are behaving rationally within their positions. Stronger papers trace symptoms to a named cause: silent standups to a manager in the room, churned backlogs to an executive with override power. A Product Owner described as a committee, or a Scrum Master treated as a project manager who assigns tasks, signals the concepts were misread. Recommendations that add ceremonies, a second planning meeting or a daily report, leave the authority problem in place. Proposals ignoring what current authority holders would lose read as naive; older role vocabulary draws corrections.
Get a MT247 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Titles, reporting lines and who really changes priorities are what a role analysis runs on, whether they come from the assigned case or from a team you know. Add the Unit 3 prompt and rubric, and a free first analysis arrives within 24-48h, each misplaced authority traced to what it breaks.
MT247 Unit 3 questions, answered
Can a manager ever serve as Scrum Master?
The Guide does not forbid it, but line authority makes the accountability difficult. A Scrum Master is meant to serve the team and cause impediments to be removed, and people rarely raise problems in front of whoever writes their reviews. The example argues the combination is breaking this particular team and recommends separating the two, while noting some organizations make it work with care.
What if the executive who overrides the Product Owner outranks everyone?
Then the analysis says so, because that is the real constraint. A recommendation cannot simply order the executive to stop; it has to offer a route that serves his interests, such as bringing his requests to the Sprint Review, where priorities are inspected openly. The example frames the change as giving the vice president visibility he currently lacks.
Should the analysis cover the Developers too?
Yes, briefly, even when the main failures sit elsewhere. Developers who receive assigned tasks have lost the self-management the Guide gives them, and that loss usually follows from the authority problems above. The example gives the Developers one row and one paragraph, showing how the manager's task assignment connects to the Scrum Master problem rather than treating it separately.