How can the group finish in the time left?
Agree a bounded decision process and leave a clear rationale.
The question
You are one participant in a scripted Harbour Projects exercise. The group has eight minutes to choose one reversible two-week helpdesk-script pilot and prepare its rationale. The brief permits a small pilot now; a permanent six-month policy change needs approval not present in the room. All details are invented.
Recommend one bounded pilot, a success check, an owner and a review date. The group cannot approve the permanent service policy.
- AmirWe have three possible scripts. I can suggest five more.
- BethWe should not decide until every preference is resolved.
- ChenCan we agree how to use the time we have?
| Minutes | |
|---|---|
| Compare the three scripts | 2 |
| Test material concerns | 2 |
| Choose and define the pilot check | 3 |
| Summarize the rationale | 1 |
The time allocation is a proposal for the group to agree, not authority the learner has been assigned.
“How can the group finish in the time left?”
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 decision does the group own?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Agree the bounded pilot decision and its required check.
The strong move. This matches the authority the brief gives the group.
Approve the permanent policy because the deadline is close.
Tempting, but it misses something. Time pressure does not grant the missing authority.
Generate options until nobody has any more ideas.
Tempting, but it misses something. That can consume the whole slot without addressing the required decision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Choose a reversible two-week pilot within the brief, not a permanent six-month policy.”
Why it works: Narrowing the decision can reduce unnecessary debate without removing a material concern.
Step 2: Does the proposed process fit?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Yes: eight minutes, with a clear decision and summary stage.
The strong move. The proposal fits the remaining time and the task.
No: it is seven minutes, so add another option round.
Tempting, but it misses something. The listed stages total eight minutes.
Skip every concern to maximize presentation time.
Tempting, but it misses something. The group still needs to test a material problem with the choice.
See how a strong candidate says it
“2+2+3+1=8 minutes. Ask the group to use the plan while leaving space for a material concern.”
Why it works: The allocation includes comparison, challenge, choice and a summary.
Step 3: How should the shorter deadline change the process?
The facilitator now says only four minutes remain. The group still needs a bounded pilot recommendation and rationale.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use the four-minute sequence and state what remains unresolved.
The strong move. This preserves the decision, challenge and explanation within the new time.
Speak twice as fast through the old discussion.
Tempting, but it misses something. That does not help the group choose which points matter.
Let the loudest participant decide without any reason.
Tempting, but it misses something. Speaking volume is not the task’s decision rule.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Propose one minute each for comparison, concerns, choice and summary. Keep the same decision boundary.”
Why it works: Shorter time calls for a narrower process, not a rushed permanent commitment or silent removal of challenge.
Step 4: What should the group present?
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Only the selected script’s name.
Tempting, but it misses something. That omits the rationale, ownership and review check required by the brief.
The pilot, reason, open check, owner and review date.
The strong move. This gives the group an actionable recommendation with a visible limit.
Claim everyone fully agrees even if a different view was recorded.
Tempting, but it misses something. The group can make a decision without misrepresenting its discussion.
See how a strong candidate says it
“State the chosen pilot, its reason, the material concern to check, an owner and a review date.”
Why it works: A participant can record a different view while helping the group present an agreed, bounded action.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Present one bounded pilot with a reason and a clear check.
- Because
- The group can meet the shorter deadline without pretending it has permanent-policy authority.
- What would change it
- A material issue that makes every listed pilot unfit, or a changed brief from the facilitator.
Common traps
- Treating time pressure as permission to change the brief.
- Waiting for every preference to disappear before deciding.
Check your answer
- What decision do we actually own?
- Does the process fit the remaining time?
- Have we tested the material concern?
- Who will check the outcome and when?
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026