How can you move the venue debate forward?
Help a group apply the same brief to different preferences.
The question
You are one participant in a scripted Harbour Projects group exercise, not automatically the chair. The group must recommend a community advice-day venue within £2,400 for hire and transport, with at least 80 expected attendees. Other access and timing needs are met. All people, figures and dialogue are invented.
| A | B | C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hire (£) | 900 | 1500 | 1200 |
| Transport (£) | 1800 | 600 | 800 |
| Expected attendees | 100 | 80 | 60 |
The attendance figures are estimates to verify, not guaranteed turnout.
- AmirA reaches the most people. That should decide it.
- BethC is cheaper. We need to protect the budget.
- ChenWe are going in circles. Can we just vote?
“How can you move the venue debate forward?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: What should your next contribution do?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Agree the cost and attendance checks before ranking the venues.
The strong move. This gives the group one consistent comparison.
Vote for the person who sounds most certain.
Tempting, but it misses something. Confidence does not establish whether a venue meets the brief.
Tell Amir that reaching more people does not matter.
Tempting, but it misses something. Reach is a stated requirement; the cost limit matters too.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Suggest applying both stated limits to every option before voting.”
Why it works: The speakers are ranking on different objectives; a vote alone will not reconcile that difference.
Step 2: Which option fits the initial brief?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
A, because 100 is the highest attendance estimate.
Tempting, but it misses something. Its £2,700 total exceeds the £2,400 budget.
B, because it meets both initial limits.
The strong move. Its £2,100 cost and 80 expected attendees fit the brief.
C, because £2,000 is cheapest.
Tempting, but it misses something. Its 60 expected attendees are below the required 80.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A totals £2,700, B £2,100 and C £2,000. B is the only listed option within £2,400 with at least 80 expected attendees.”
Why it works: C misses the attendance requirement; A exceeds the cost limit.
Step 3: How should you offer the recommendation?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
B fits both limits. Is there any source or assumption we need to check?
The strong move. This makes the reasoning and uncertainty visible to the group.
Everyone who chose another venue has failed the task.
Tempting, but it misses something. That attacks participants rather than improving the comparison.
We agree, so the attendance estimate must be correct.
Tempting, but it misses something. Agreement cannot verify an external estimate.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Propose B on the current estimates, state both reasons and invite a relevant check.”
Why it works: A useful contribution builds a shared reason instead of treating disagreement as disloyalty.
Step 4: Does the revised estimate change the choice?
The venue contact now revises B’s expected attendance to 70. All costs, the 80-attendee minimum and the £2,400 budget are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Keep B because the group has already agreed.
Tempting, but it misses something. The revised estimate no longer meets the stated attendance requirement.
Explain that none currently fits and ask what feasible change can be checked.
The strong move. This preserves both constraints and makes the gap explicit.
Silently lower the minimum attendance to 70.
Tempting, but it misses something. The group does not have authority to change the brief without saying so.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Yes. No listed venue now meets both unchanged limits. State the gap and seek an alternative or an explicit brief revision.”
Why it works: A group should revise its recommendation when the assumption supporting it changes.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Report that none of the listed venues currently meets both limits.
- Because
- The only initial fit depended on an attendance estimate that has changed.
- What would change it
- A verified new option or an agreed change to the brief.
Common traps
- Voting before agreeing the criteria.
- Keeping a recommendation after its supporting estimate changes.
Check your answer
- What does the brief require?
- Did we test each option the same way?
- Which estimate needs checking?
- Did the new fact change our conclusion?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026