What contribution is the group missing?
Invite relevant information and let it change the plan.
The question
You are one participant in a scripted Harbour Projects exercise about a service pop-up. The initial plan has 24 arrivals in a 15-minute window, two staff and one minute per check-in. All 24 people are ready at the start of the window. Each job stays with one staff member without sharing or interruption. No job starts before the window; count only completed check-ins. All details are invented.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Arrivals per window | 24 |
| Window (minutes) | 15 |
| Staff | 2 |
| Minutes per check-in | 1 |
This is a bounded capacity calculation, not a prediction of queueing or waiting times.
- AmirTwo staff give 30 check-ins. We can finish this decision.
- BethWe should focus on signs. Nobody will read the procedure.
- MiraI have the current check-in note. There is a requirement we need to—
- AmirWe can come back to that. The numbers already work.
“What contribution is the group missing?”
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 is the information gap?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Ask to hear the unfinished procedure check before deciding.
The strong move. This brings relevant evidence into the group’s reasoning.
Diagnose Mira as lacking confidence.
Tempting, but it misses something. The transcript does not establish her personality or why she has spoken less.
Continue because two participants already agree.
Tempting, but it misses something. A majority does not resolve the missing procedure information.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The group has not heard the current procedure before accepting its one-minute assumption.”
Why it works: Mira has relevant source material; her speaking volume is not the issue to assess.
Step 2: How can you make room?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Praise Mira for finally speaking and demand a long presentation.
Tempting, but it misses something. That shifts attention from the evidence to a judgment about her participation.
Invite the relevant section and let Mira choose how to share it.
The strong move. This reduces the interruption and keeps the task in focus.
Summarize the note yourself without reading it.
Tempting, but it misses something. That would replace the missing evidence with another assumption.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ask whether Mira would like to explain the note or have its relevant section read, then leave room for the answer.”
Why it works: Offer a useful way to contribute without taking over or making a person perform for the group.
Step 3: What does the procedure change?
Mira reads the current procedure: each check-in requires 2 uninterrupted minutes with the same staff member. The 15-minute window and 24 arrivals are unchanged.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Two staff complete 15 checks because 30/2=15.
Tempting, but it misses something. That pools spare minutes across staff, which the case’s nonshared jobs do not allow.
Two staff complete 14 checks, below the 24 arrivals.
The strong move. Each completes seven whole checks within the window.
The original 30 capacity remains because the group already accepted it.
Tempting, but it misses something. The one-minute assumption has been replaced by the current procedure.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Each staff member can complete floor(15/2)=7 checks, so two staff complete 14. That is below 24 arrivals.”
Why it works: The jobs are indivisible, stay with one staff member and have no pre-start work. Fifteen minutes cannot contain 7.5 completed two-minute checks.
Step 4: How should the group use the contribution?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Thank Mira and keep the two-staff plan.
Tempting, but it misses something. That acknowledges the person but ignores the capacity gap.
Use four staff, or agree a different arrival plan, and explain the evidence.
The strong move. Four staff meet the stated count; a different plan needs explicit agreement.
Use three staff because 22.5 theoretical checks is nearly 24.
Tempting, but it misses something. Only 21 whole checks finish, and even the fluid rate would be below 24.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Credit the procedure check and revise the plan. Three staff complete 21 checks; four complete 28, enough for the 24 arrivals in this bounded model.”
Why it works: Thanking a participant without changing an unworkable plan does not use the information they contributed.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Revise staffing or the arrival plan using the current procedure.
- Because
- Two staff complete 14 checks; four complete 28 within the stated window.
- What would change it
- A verified different procedure or an agreed change to staffing, arrivals or window length.
Common traps
- Treating a quiet participant as the problem.
- Counting fractional checks as completed people.
Check your answer
- What evidence has not been heard?
- Did I offer a useful way to contribute?
- Did I count whole jobs for each staff member?
- Did the evidence change the plan?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026