Scope Springs Eternal: A Programme Delivery Simulation

Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.

Loading…

<<set $scope to 60>> <<set $quality to 60>> <<set $expend to 60>> <<set $risk to 60>> <<set $time to 60>> <<set $client to 60>> <<set $cpt to 60>> <<set $team to 60>> <<set $owed to { client: { debt: 0, credit: 0, debtNotes: [], creditNotes: [] }, cpt: { debt: 0, credit: 0, debtNotes: [], creditNotes: [] }, team: { debt: 0, credit: 0, debtNotes: [], creditNotes: [] } }>> <<set $borrowed to 0>> <<set $invested to 0>> <<set $relHist to []>> <<set $when to "Pre-inception">> <<set $month to 0>> <<set $log to []>> <<set $reviews to []>> <<set $creep to 0>> <<set $ambitious to false>> <<set $vague to false>> <<set $weakHire to false>> <<set $pea to false>> <<set $fun to true>> <<set $conference to false>> <<set $styles to { proper: 0, pleaser: 0, rigid: 0, quiet: 0, pace: 0 }>> <<set $styled to []>> <<set $warned to []>> <<set $shown to { scope: 60, quality: 60, expend: 60, risk: 60, time: 60 }>> <<set $pending to []>> <<set $closeKeys to null>> <<set $troubled to -1>> <<set $crCount to 0>> <<set $prevShown to null>> <<set $trancheWaived to false>> <<set $roundRushed to false>>

<<print setup.meters()>>

<<print setup.timeline()>>

<<widget "impact">><<set _a6 to _args || $args>><<print setup.impact(_a6, _a6[5])>><</widget>> <<widget "rel">><<set _r4 to _args || $args>><<print setup.rel(_r4[0], _r4[1], _r4[2], _r4[3])>><</widget>> <<widget "settle">><<set _s1 to _args || $args>><<print setup.settle(_s1[0])>><</widget>> <<widget "nextstep">><<print setup.warnings()>><<if setup.failed()>><<set $closeKeys to setup.failScope()>><div class="continue">[[Continue →|Early Closure]]</div><<else>><<set _dest to (_args || $args)[0]>><div class="continue"><<link "Continue →" _dest>><</link>></div><</if>><</widget>> <<widget "arscore">> <<set _a to setup.avg()>><<set _g to setup.grade(_a)>><<run $reviews.push(_g)>> <div class="grade" @data-g="_g">Score: _g</div> <p class="gradetext">//<<print setup.gradeText[_g]>>.// <<print setup.gradeImpact[_g]>> ''<<print setup.gradeQuip[_g][Math.min($reviews.length, 3) - 1]>>''</p> <</widget>> <<widget "meme">><<set _mm to _args || $args>><<print setup.meme(_mm[0], _mm[1])>><</widget>>

<div id="loader"><div class="ldtitle">Scope Springs Eternal</div><div class="ldsub">A programme delivery simulation</div><div class="ldbar"><div class="ldfill"></div></div><div class="ldmsg">Starting up…</div></div> <div id="startmain"> <h1>Scope Springs Eternal</h1> ''A programme delivery simulation'' <<include "IntroEmail">> <div class="sqnote">Your project management fundamentals (SQERT) are your framework for making sound decisions. The client doesn't think in these terms and will never ask about your "Scope score". What they notice are the consequences when it isn't managed well: missed deliverables, weak outputs, budget surprises, incidents and delays.</div> <div class="choices">[[Meet the cast|Cast]] [[How the game works|Briefing]] [[Skip everything and start Year 1|E01]]</div> //Playing time: about 15–20 minutes.// </div>

<h2>Meet the cast</h2> <<include "CastCards">> <div class="choices">[[Next: how the game works|Briefing]] [[Skip the briefing and start Year 1|E01]]</div>

<<include "BriefingBody">> <div class="choices">[[Begin Year 1|E01]]</div>

<div class="memo email"><div class="from">From: ASI Programme Delivery</div><div class="emeta"><strong>To:</strong> You, Project Director<br><strong>Subject:</strong> Welcome to GROW! (please read before your flight)</div> Congratulations on your appointment as ''Project Director'' of GROW, ASI's new three-year, £12 million economic development programme in the Republic of Marenta. It is funded by an international development donor government: your client. Your job is to deliver more jobs, more investment and lasting reforms for the people of Marenta, and to keep the programme on track through three Annual Reviews. A few practical notes: * Your laptop will arrive in 6–8 weeks. * Your dials are in the sidebar: your latest annual review score, ASI's internal review of your project management fundamentals (SQERT), updated at each Annual Review, and your relationships with your client, your government counterpart and your own team. If any of them falls to 15 or below, the programme is closed early. * Decisions cannot be undone. In our experience, neither can press releases. Your predecessor has left you a handover note. It reads, in full: //"Good luck. The coffee machine on the second floor is the good one."// Best wishes, The ASI Programme Delivery team</div>

<div class="cast"> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">👩‍💼</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Claire Hendry</div><div class="crole">Client Programme Lead</div>''Likes:'' big numbers, ministerial visits, good news. ''Dislikes:'' small numbers. ''Catchphrase:'' "Just a quick one…"</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">🧔</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Ilyas Varga</div><div class="crole">Director General, Marenta Investment and Enterprise Agency</div>''Superpower:'' knows everyone. ''Loves:'' a good expo. Gets results. ''Catchphrase:'' "I know I can count on you."</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">👩🏾‍💼</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Ruth Okafor</div><div class="crole">Director General, MIEA (joins after the election)</div>Cautious. Reads everything, including her predecessor's files.</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">🎤</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">The Minister</div><div class="crole">Minister of Trade and Industry</div>''Likes:'' launches, summits, ribbons. ''Has never met:'' a press conference they didn't like.</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">📈</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Your economist</div><div class="crole">Results and evidence</div>Communicates exclusively in one-line emails. Famously cautious. Occasionally right.</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">🧾</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Your finance manager</div><div class="crole">Budget and forecasting</div>Has seen things. Has asked "which budget line?" more times than anyone alive.</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">🌱</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Your fund manager</div><div class="crole">Runs the challenge fund</div>Reads every grant agreement. Twice. Keeps a spreadsheet of spreadsheets.</div></div> <div class="castc"><div class="cav">🧑‍💻</div><div class="cbody"><div class="cname">Your deputy</div><div class="crole">Holds the team together</div>Notices everything. Says little. Remembers all of it.</div></div> </div> //Cast subject to change. Elections happen.//

<h2>Project management fundamentals (SQERT)</h2> <div class="defs"><div class="def"><span class="ltr">S</span><div>''Scope.'' What the programme is contracted to deliver: the outputs, workstreams and beneficiaries in the Terms of Reference and logframe.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr">Q</span><div>''Quality.'' Whether what you deliver is good enough to achieve results: technical standards, value for money, and whether businesses and government actually benefit.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr">E</span><div>''Expenditure.'' Spending against the agreed budget, and forecasting it.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr">R</span><div>''Risk control.'' How well you manage fiduciary, safeguarding, political and reputational risk. Higher is better.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr">T</span><div>''Time.'' Delivery against the workplan, milestones and reporting deadlines.</div></div></div> <div class="sqnote">These are your internal measure of how well you are managing the programme. ASI reviews them internally at each Annual Review, alongside the client's own review. The client judges what they experience: deliverables, results, spending, incidents and deadlines.</div> <h2>Happiness</h2> <div class="defs"><div class="def"><span class="ltr rl">🤝</span><div>''Client'' shows how much Claire Hendry, the Client Programme Lead in Marenta, likes working with you ''right now''.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr rl">🏛️</span><div>''Counterpart'' shows how much your government counterpart likes working with you ''right now''.</div></div><div class="def"><span class="ltr rl">👥</span><div>''Team'' shows how your GROW team of advisers and experts is feeling ''right now''.</div></div></div> Relationships, like programmes, can change over time. <h2>Your programme</h2> ''GROW'' (Growth, Resilience and Opportunity for Work) supports the Republic of Marenta, a fictional lower-middle-income country, to create jobs and attract investment. It has three workstreams: * ''Business environment:'' making it quicker and cheaper to register and license a business * ''SME growth:'' a challenge fund that offers matching grants to growing small businesses * ''Agri-exports:'' helping horticulture producers reach export markets ASI is the lead supplier, and you are its ''Project Director'', leading a team of long-term advisers and short-term experts. Your client is the donor government's development office in Marenta. The programme is overseen by ''Claire Hendry'', the Client Programme Lead. Your main counterpart is ''Director General Ilyas Varga'' of the Marenta Investment and Enterprise Agency (MIEA).

<<link "Welcome email">><<run setup.popup("Welcome email", "IntroEmail")>><</link>> <<link "Cast">><<run setup.popup("Meet the cast", "CastCards")>><</link>> <<link "How it works">><<run setup.popup("How the game works", "BriefingBody")>><</link>>

<<set $when to "Year 1 · Inception">><<set $month to 2>> <h2>Inception: setting the targets</h2> You are finalising the logframe during the inception phase. <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: Claire Hendry, Client Programme Lead</div>Ministers would love a headline we can announce: ''"GROW will create 100,000 jobs."'' Between us, a big number like that is exactly what I need to make the case for a ''£5 million budget uplift'' in the next spending round. That would let GROW take the challenge fund to two more regions and reach thousands more small businesses. Programmes with small numbers are the first to be cut. Can we put it in?</div> Your economist's analysis suggests that 15,000 to 20,000 jobs can credibly be attributed to the programme. Most job creation depends on things outside your control, such as investment flows, the exchange rate and the harvest. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Accept the 100,000-jobs target. A £5 million uplift could take the programme to two more regions.|E01a]] [[Propose a lower target of 18,000 jobs, with a separate stretch indicator for ministers.|E01b]] [[Leave the indicators as "TBC" for now and get delivery moving while others are still planning.|E01c]]</div>

<<set $ambitious to true>> Claire is delighted. The figure goes straight into a ministerial press release, she thanks you for being "so easy to work with", and she starts drafting the business case for the uplift. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -5 0 -10 5 "Accepting targets you can't influence stores up trouble for every future Annual Review, whatever they seem to unlock today.">><<rel "client" 10 -10 "the 100,000-jobs headline you agreed to, and the £5 million uplift she had to drop when the numbers didn't add up, along with the regional expansion it would have funded">><<rel "team" 0 -5 "chasing a jobs target nobody on the team believed in">></span> <<nextstep "E02">>

You present the evidence, propose a target of 18,000 jobs, and add a stretch indicator on investment that ministers can talk about. Claire is deflated. She warns that a smaller number "makes my uplift case much harder". The negotiation drags on for six weeks. But the logframe is solid and everyone understands what GROW is accountable for. Your economist is visibly relieved. <span class="chips"><<impact 10 5 0 5 -5 "Realistic, evidence-based targets agreed at inception are the cheapest scope management you will ever do.">><<rel "client" -5 10 "your honest advice on the jobs target, which now protects her at review">><<rel "team" 5 0>></span> <<nextstep "E02">>

<<set $vague to true>> You move fast and start delivery straight away. Claire is happy to see activity on the ground. Delivery is up and running weeks ahead of other programmes. <span class="chips"><<impact -10 -5 0 -5 10 "Vague scope at inception is an open invitation to scope creep, and it leaves reviewers nothing to measure.">><<rel "client" 5 -10 "the indicators still marked 'TBC', which leave her nothing to report upwards">><<rel "team" 5 -5 "the rework when the indicators had to be defined mid-year">></span> <<nextstep "E02">>

<<set $when to "Year 1 · Month 4">><<set $month to 4>> <h2>The trade delegation</h2> <div class="memo"><div class="from">Director General Ilyas Varga, MIEA</div>Marenta must be seen at the Gulf Investment Expo next month. I would like GROW to fund a delegation of fifteen: my senior officials and some carefully selected business leaders. This is how investment happens. The Minister has told me that if GROW makes this happen, he will present the programme with this year's ''National Partnership Award'' at the Independence Day reception, in front of the whole diplomatic corps. That kind of recognition would put GROW on the map with investors and other donors, and open doors across government for your reforms.</div> The trip would cost about £55,000. It is not in the workplan, but you have enough unallocated contingency to cover it. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Fund the trip from contingency. The award would raise the programme's profile with investors and government.|E02a]] [[Propose a smaller investor mission instead, and take it to the client as a change request.|E02b]] [[Decline politely and point the DG to the trade ministry's own promotion budget.|E02c]]</div>

<<set $creep to $creep + 1>> The DG is delighted and tells his Minister that GROW is "a true partner". Two months later, the Minister presents you with the National Partnership Award, and the programme's profile soars: two more ministries ask to join the reforms. <span class="chips"><<impact -10 0 -10 -5 5 "Unapproved spend from contingency is scope creep with an audit trail. An award doesn't change that.">><<rel "cpt" 15 -10 "the expo trip, which produced no investment leads and a newspaper story about 'donor-funded junkets'">><<rel "client" 0 -10 "the unapproved expo trip she learned about from the press, and an award that now looks embarrassing">><<rel "team" 5 0>></span> <<nextstep "E03">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>You propose a three-person investor-outreach mission focused on two sectors, with pre-arranged meetings and follow-up targets. The client approves it, though the paperwork takes a month and the mission costs more than you'd hoped. The DG is disappointed that the delegation has been cut, but agrees. <span class="chips"><<impact 5 0 -5 5 0 "Formal change control turns a demand into a decision: assessed, costed and approved.">><<rel "cpt" -5 10 "the focused investor mission, which led to two real investment deals">><<rel "client" 5 0>><<rel "team" -5 5 "a focused mission that actually produced results">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "E03">>

You explain that the trip is outside GROW's scope and point the DG to the trade ministry's budget. Scope is protected, but the DG is cool towards you for weeks, and several meetings are cancelled. <span class="chips"><<impact 5 0 0 -5 -5 "Saying no protects scope but has a relationship cost. Better options exist than a flat 'no'.">><<rel "cpt" -10 0>></span> <<nextstep "E03">>

<<set $when to "Year 1 · Month 6">><<set $month to 6>> <h2>Recruiting the export expert</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">🧑‍💼 Resignation</span>Your long-term agri-export expert flew to a two-day avocado conference in Lisbon three weeks ago and hasn't been heard from since. Their out-of-office now just reads: //"Living my best life."//</div> You have three options: * Your preferred candidate is an experienced horticulture export specialist who has worked with European and Gulf buyers. She is available in ''three months''. * A local consultant is available ''now''. He is cheaper, ''personally recommended'' by the DG, knows the Ministry inside out and has strong relationships with the business community. He hasn't led export work before. * You could hire a capable young local agronomist now, with the preferred expert providing ''part-time remote support'' until she can start full-time. <div class="memo"><div class="from">Director General Ilyas Varga, MIEA</div>He knows everyone in the Ministry. With him on your team, I can get the licensing reform onto the Cabinet agenda ''three months early''. That would cut red tape for thousands of small businesses three months sooner.</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Hire the DG's recommended consultant now. He could fast-track the licensing reform.|E03a]] [[Wait three months for the export specialist, and hold the export work until she arrives.|E03b]] [[Hire the young agronomist now, with the export specialist supporting remotely.|E03c]]</div>

<<set $weakHire to true>> The DG is pleased that his advice was taken and, true to his word, gets the licensing reform onto the Cabinet agenda early. Work restarts immediately and the budget looks healthier. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -10 5 -5 5 "The right expert is part of Quality. Hiring to please someone costs more later, even when the favour is repaid.">><<rel "cpt" 10 -5 "the consultant he recommended, whose work exporters now call weak">><<rel "team" 5 -10 "covering for a colleague out of his depth">></span> <<nextstep "E04">>

You protect quality, but the export workstream stalls for a quarter. A buyer visit slips into Year 2, and the DG wonders aloud why nothing is happening. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 10 0 0 -10 "Protecting quality often costs time. That can be the right call, but plan for the delay and tell people early.">><<rel "cpt" -5 0>><<rel "team" -10 0>></span> <<nextstep "E04">>

The interim arrangement costs more than either option alone, and it is fiddly to manage, but it keeps momentum. The young agronomist grows quickly with senior mentoring, and the DG likes seeing a Marentan in a key role. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 5 -5 0 0 "Creative resourcing can protect more than one of the fundamentals at once.">><<rel "cpt" 5 5 "a strong young Marentan expert who now represents his agency well">><<rel "team" 5 5 "mentoring a rising star">></span> <<nextstep "E04">>

<<set $when to "Year 1 · Month 9">><<set $month to 9>> <h2>The ministerial visit</h2> <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: Claire Hendry, Client Programme Lead</div>A minister from the donor government visits Marenta next month. Could your team organise a visit to a horticulture farm, draft the minister's talking points, and host a showcase event with local entrepreneurs? This matters. She signs off next year's programme budgets. If she sees GROW at its best, I'm confident we can secure a ''£1.5 million top-up for Year 3'', enough to extend the export programme to 2,000 more smallholder farmers. I'd also like to feature GROW in our "Partners in Development" showcase in the donor's capital, where other donors are looking for reforms to co-fund.</div> Your deputy estimates about ''three weeks of team time''. None of it is in the Terms of Reference. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Say yes and put the team on it straight away. £1.5 million could reach 2,000 more farmers.|E04a]] [[Agree, and settle with Claire which activities slip or how the extra work is funded.|E04b]] [[Decline. The visit is outside the Terms of Reference, and the team is at full stretch.|E04c]]</div>

<<set $creep to $creep + 1>> The visit is a triumph. The minister mentions GROW in a speech, Claire sends a glowing thank-you email, and the top-up is "looking very likely". The team will catch up on the registration work next month. <span class="chips"><<impact -10 0 -5 0 -10 "Small favours add up. If it's not in the Terms of Reference, it isn't free, whatever it might unlock.">><<rel "client" 15 -10 "the slipped deliverables behind that successful visit, which led to the top-up, and the 2,000 farmers it would have reached, being quietly shelved">><<rel "team" 5 -10 "three weeks of evenings and weekends behind the visit">></span> <<nextstep "AR1">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>You agree to support the visit and send Claire a short note: three weeks of effort, with a one-month slip on the licensing review unless she prefers to fund extra days. She agrees to the slip in writing. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 0 5 -5 "You can say yes and still manage scope. Make the trade-off visible and get it agreed.">><<rel "client" 5 5 "being straight with her about the trade-off, which meant no surprises">><<rel "team" 0 5 "a slip agreed in writing, not absorbed in weekends">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "AR1">>

You decline, citing the contract. Technically you are right. Claire organises the visit herself, and you notice you are left off the next strategy meeting. Your team is quietly relieved. <span class="chips"><<impact 5 0 0 -5 0 "Rigid refusal damages trust. Scope management is a negotiation, not a wall.">><<rel "client" -15 0>><<rel "team" 5 0>></span> <<nextstep "AR1">>

<<set $when to "Year 1 · Annual Review">><<set $month to 12>> <h2>Annual Review: Year 1</h2> The client's reviewers spend a week assessing GROW against its logframe. <div class="lbl">1 · Findings</div> <<if $vague>> <div class="find bad">''Reviewers' finding:'' Several logframe indicators are still marked "TBC" a year into the programme. The review team could not assess progress on half the outputs, so nobody can tell whether small businesses are actually benefiting.</div> <<impact -5 -10 0 -5 0 "Unclear scope makes good work invisible to reviewers.">> <</if>> <<if $ambitious>> <div class="find bad">''Reviewers' finding:'' The 100,000-jobs target appears highly ambitious, and job creation is well below the required trajectory. Chasing an unrealistic number risks pulling the programme away from jobs that will last.</div> <<impact 0 -5 0 -5 0 "Unrealistic targets turn reasonable progress into apparent failure.">> <</if>> <<set _pg to setup.grade(setup.avg())>> <<if not $vague and not $ambitious and (_pg is "B" or _pg is "C")>> <div class="find neutral">''Reviewers' finding:'' Reviewers note mixed progress. Several outputs are behind plan and the evidence of results is patchy.</div> <<elseif not $vague and not $ambitious>> <div class="find good">''Reviewers' finding:'' The logframe is clear and measurable, and the programme has a credible results framework.</div> <<impact 0 5 0 0 5 "A clear results framework lets reviewers see your progress.">> <<meme "stonks" "review">> <</if>> <div class="lbl">2 · How people feel</div> <<settle "Review 1">> <div class="lbl">3 · The client's score</div> <<arscore>> <div class="lbl">4 · ASI internal review</div> <<print setup.internalReview()>> <<nextstep "E05">>

<<set $when to "Year 2 · Month 2">><<set $month to 14>> <h2>A snap election</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">⚡ Breaking news</span>A snap election brings in a new government. The new Minister of Trade and Industry is publicly sceptical of "donor projects picking winners". DG Varga is moved to another post, and his replacement, ''Director General Ruth Okafor'', is cautious and new to the role. She has read her predecessor's files, but she is forming her own view of GROW.<<set $cpt to Math.round(60 + ($cpt - 60) / 2)>></div> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">📞 Incoming call</span>Meanwhile, the Governor of the Northern Region calls you. Her regional chambers of commerce are keen to work with GROW. She offers ''£300,000 of regional co-funding'' for the SME work and invites you to open the regional business forum, with national TV coverage.</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Pause non-critical work for six weeks to analyse the new government and re-engage it.|E05a]] [[Keep the technical work moving, and invest heavily in briefing the new Minister in parallel.|E05b]] [[Move the SME work to the regional chambers: keen partners, £300,000 of co-funding and national TV.|E05c]]</div>

<<set $pea to true>> The pause is expensive: the team is on the payroll while delivery waits, and DG Okafor is impatient. The analysis shows that the new government cares about ''youth jobs and regional fairness'', not about picking winners. You reframe the SME challenge fund around young entrepreneurs outside the capital, and the Minister starts to talk about GROW as "our programme". <span class="chips"><<impact 0 5 -5 10 -5 "When the context changes, stop and understand it. Political economy analysis is a risk management tool.">><<rel "cpt" -5 15 "a programme reframed around her government's priorities">><<rel "team" -10 10 "a re-plan that gave the work a purpose again">></span> <<nextstep "E06">>

Your senior team spends weeks in back-to-back briefings while delivery continues. It is expensive and exhausting, but the reforms keep moving, and the new Minister is cautiously on board, though she still sees GROW as the last government's programme. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 -10 5 0 "Keeping delivery going while engaging a new government is possible, but it costs money and energy. When the context changes, there is no free option.">><<rel "cpt" 0 5 "being kept informed from day one">><<rel "team" -10 0>></span> <<nextstep "E06">>

<<set $creep to $creep + 1>> The Governor is delighted, the forum makes the evening news, and the co-funding letter arrives. The work feels productive. DG Okafor is noticeably cool when she hears about it. <span class="chips"><<impact -15 5 0 -5 0 "Changing where or what you deliver without approval is a scope change, however good the offer.">><<rel "cpt" -5 0>><<rel "client" 0 -10 "a quiet change of scope that she never approved">><<rel "team" 10 -5 "juggling two sets of partners at once">></span> <<nextstep "E06">>

<<set $when to "Year 2 · Month 5">><<set $month to 17>> <h2>The showcase firm</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">🚩 Problem flagged</span>A fast-growing agribusiness, ''Sunrise Produce'', received a £40,000 matching grant from GROW's challenge fund. Its grant agreement ties a second £40,000 tranche to hiring 200 workers and opening a new packhouse. Your fund manager reports that Sunrise has hired 40 workers, the packhouse is six months behind schedule, and its business plan now looks shaky. Under the fund's rules, the second tranche should be paused until the firm agrees a recovery plan.</div> The timing could not be worse: * Next month the founder is due to receive the Minister's ''Entrepreneur of the Year'' award, and the Minister's office has asked you to "expedite" the second tranche. * The client's communications team has chosen Sunrise as the headline case study for its global "jobs and growth" campaign. Claire is very proud of it. * Sunrise's story is drawing a wave of new applicants to the challenge fund, and two foreign investors have cited it as a reason to look at Marenta. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Release the second tranche on schedule to protect the award, the campaign and the fund's momentum.|E06a]] [[Pause the tranche, agree a recovery plan with Sunrise, and brief the client and the Minister's office.|E06b]] [[Terminate the grant and drop Sunrise from the fund, to show the rules mean something.|E06c]]</div>

<<set $trancheWaived to true>> The tranche is paid, the founder receives his award, and the client's campaign launches with his smiling face. DG Okafor thanks you for being "a flexible partner". Applications to the fund jump 40%. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -10 -10 -10 0 "Bending the rules for a favoured grantee undermines value for money and the fairness of the whole fund.">><<rel "cpt" 10 -10 "Sunrise collapsing months after the award, and the Minister having to explain it">><<rel "client" 5 -15 "£80,000 paid to a firm that collapsed, in the campaign she had championed">><<rel "team" 0 0>></span> <<nextstep "E07">>

The founder is unhappy, and the Minister's office is irritated by the timing. But with a credible recovery plan, Sunrise opens its packhouse four months later and hires 150 workers. Claire quietly switches the client's campaign to a different case study, and thanks you for the early warning. Managing the recovery plan takes far more of your fund manager's time than anyone expected. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 0 10 -5 "Apply the rules consistently and tell people early. Good grant management protects value for money and everyone's reputation.">><<rel "cpt" -10 10 "a recovery plan that turned the Minister's showcase into a genuine success">><<rel "client" -5 10 "being warned before the campaign launched, not after">><<rel "team" -5 5 "a recovery plan that turned a problem into a success">></span> <<nextstep "E07">>

You terminate the grant. The founder goes to the press, the Minister is furious, and other grantees start to worry that GROW is unpredictable. Claire has to pull Sunrise from the campaign at short notice. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 5 -5 0 "Enforcing the rules doesn't mean being heavy-handed. A proportionate response protects both results and relationships.">><<rel "cpt" -15 0>><<rel "client" -5 0>><<rel "team" -5 0>></span> <<nextstep "E07">>

<<set $when to "Year 2 · Month 7">><<set $month to 19>> <h2>Inflation shock</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">📉 Economic shock</span>Inflation in Marenta jumps to 25%. Venue hire, local staff salaries and in-country travel all cost more. Your finance manager reports that Year 2 is now heading for a ''£300,000 shortfall'' against the budget.</div> <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: Claire Hendry, Client Programme Lead</div>My director has just praised GROW as our "no-fuss programme". He's also counting on it as the model for the client's new portfolio. Honestly, I'd rather not take a budget reprofile to him right now. Can you manage it within the envelope?</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Cut every workstream by the same share, so no partner loses out and the DG stays on side.|E07a]] [[Take options to the client: protect the top outputs, defer the rest and reprofile the budget.|E07b]] [[Manage it within the envelope, as Claire asked, by trimming review days, surveys and quality assurance.|E07c]]</div>

Across-the-board cuts balance the budget, and no partner complains about losing a whole activity. The team grumbles about doing everything with less. <span class="chips"><<impact -10 -10 10 0 0 "Salami-slicing treats all outputs as equally valuable. They rarely are.">><<rel "cpt" 5 -5 "every workstream now feeling half-done">><<rel "team" -5 -5 "every workstream stretched thin">></span> <<nextstep "E08">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>You present the client with three costed options. Together you agree to protect the business registration reform and the challenge fund, defer the export market study to Year 3, and reprofile the budget. The export study will now arrive late, and DG Okafor is unhappy about the deferral. Replanning every workstream takes the team weeks. <span class="chips"><<impact -5 5 5 0 0 "When costs change, go back to the client with options. Reprioritising together keeps scope and budget aligned.">><<rel "cpt" -5 5 "the fact that the reforms she cared about most were protected">><<rel "client" 5 5 "being brought in early, with options, before the problem became hers">><<rel "team" -5 5 "priorities that finally made sense">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "E08">>

The budget balances on paper. Claire tells her director that GROW "absorbed a 25% inflation shock without fuss", and GROW becomes the model for the new portfolio. Your M&E officer is not thrilled to lose her survey budget. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -15 10 -10 0 "Cutting quality assurance is invisible at first, and very visible at the next review.">><<rel "client" 5 -10 "the deliverables that arrived without quality assurance, in the programme she had held up as a model">><<rel "team" -5 -10 "putting out work nobody had checked">></span> <<nextstep "E08">>

<<set $when to "Year 2 · Month 10">><<set $month to 22>> <h2>The big idea</h2> <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: The Minister of Trade and Industry</div><<if $pea>>Your team has really understood what this government is trying to achieve. <</if>>I want GROW to create a ''Marenta Young Entrepreneurs Fund'': low-interest start-up loans for 5,000 young people, launched before the next budget. I would like to announce it at the National Youth Summit next week. Do this, and I will ask the donor's Ambassador to make GROW its ''flagship programme'' in Marenta. I have already raised the idea of ''doubling its budget'' with her. That would mean twice as many businesses supported and a youth fund in every region.</div> It is exciting and politically popular. It is also roughly ''£2 million'' of work, it needs a lending partner you don't have, and it is not in your contract. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Say yes in the meeting. Double the budget could transform youth jobs across the country.|E08a]] [[Welcome the idea, then take costed options to the client as a change request.|E08b]] [[Decline. The fund is outside the contract, and GROW has enough on its plate.|E08c]]</div>

<<set $creep to $creep + 1>> The Minister announces the fund at the Youth Summit to a standing ovation and names GROW as the delivery partner. That evening, she mentions "doubling GROW" to the Ambassador at a reception. <span class="chips"><<impact -20 0 -10 -5 -10 "A yes in a meeting is a scope change. Get approval before you make public commitments.">><<rel "cpt" 20 -20 "a public promise to 5,000 young people that never materialised">><<rel "client" 0 -15 "a press announcement about her own programme that she knew nothing about, and an awkward conversation with the Ambassador about 'doubling'">><<rel "team" 10 -15 "a public promise they had to scramble to deliver with no budget">></span> <<nextstep "AR2">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>Your scoping note sets out three options, from a 500-person youth enterprise pilot run through the challenge fund to a full loan fund. The client funds the pilot through a contract amendment. The Minister wanted the full fund but gets a credible, funded first step to announce. Running the pilot on top of everything else stretches the team. <<impact 5 0 0 5 -5 "Good ideas deserve a proper process: scope it, cost it, approve it, then deliver it.">> <span class="chips"><<if $pea>><<rel "cpt" 5 15 "a youth pilot that actually launched, which she now cites in every speech">><<else>><<rel "cpt" 5 10 "a youth pilot that actually launched">><</if>><<rel "client" 5 0>><<rel "team" -5 5 "a youth pilot they could actually deliver">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "AR2">>

You decline. The Minister approaches another donor, who takes on the work and the relationship. GROW starts to look less relevant to the government's priorities. The team is disappointed to lose such an exciting idea. <span class="chips"><<impact 5 -5 0 -10 0 "Protecting scope isn't the same as refusing change. Formal change control lets you say 'yes, properly'.">><<rel "cpt" -15 0>><<rel "team" -5 0>></span> <<nextstep "AR2">>

<<set $when to "Year 2 · Annual Review">><<set $month to 24>> <h2>Annual Review: Year 2</h2> <div class="lbl">1 · Findings</div> <<set _issues to 0>> <<if $trancheWaived>><<set _issues to _issues + 1>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' Sunrise Produce has gone into administration, eight months after receiving £80,000 of grant funding and a national award. The client's campaign case study has been withdrawn, and reviewers question the challenge fund's value for money. Every pound spent propping up a failing firm is a pound not spent on businesses that could have created lasting jobs.</div> <<impact 0 -10 -5 -5 0 "Waiving the rules for a favoured grantee rarely saves it, and the cost lands on the programme.">> <<meme "surprised" "review">> <</if>> <<if $ambitious>><<set _issues to _issues + 1>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' GROW has supported 9,000 jobs against the 100,000-jobs target. The outcome is rated as substantially off track, and Claire has to explain the gap to ministers. The real progress on jobs risks being overshadowed, and with it the case for continuing support.</div> <<impact 0 -10 0 -5 0 "The ambitious target you accepted in Year 1 has come due.">> <<meme "expect" "review">> <span class="chips"><<rel "client" -10 0>></span> <</if>> <<if $creep gte 2>><<set _issues to _issues + 1>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' Reviewers identify activities and spend that do not map to the logframe or contract. They request a reconciliation. Effort spent off-plan is effort not spent on the reforms Marenta's businesses are waiting for.</div> <<impact -10 0 0 -5 0 "Informal scope changes become visible when someone checks the activities against the contract.">> <<meme "boyfriend" "review">> <</if>> <<if $weakHire>><<set _issues to _issues + 1>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' Exporters describe the agri-export workstream as "not commercially credible". No export contracts have been signed, so farmers are still selling at local prices.</div> <<impact 0 -10 0 0 0 "Expertise gaps show up in output quality.">> <<meme "athome" "review">> <</if>> <<set _pg to setup.grade(setup.avg())>> <<if _issues is 0 and (_pg is "B" or _pg is "C")>> <div class="find neutral">''Reviewers' finding:'' Reviewers note mixed progress. Several outputs are behind plan, and the programme's results story is hard to follow.</div> <<elseif _issues is 0>> <div class="find good">''Reviewers' finding:'' The programme adapted well to a difficult year, with strong governance and a clear audit trail for changes.</div> <<impact 0 5 0 0 0 "Good governance in a hard year earns credit at review.">> <<meme "stonks" "review">> <</if>> <div class="lbl">2 · How people feel</div> <<settle "Review 2">> <div class="lbl">3 · The client's score</div> <<arscore>> <div class="lbl">4 · ASI internal review</div> <<print setup.internalReview()>> <<nextstep "E09">>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 1">><<set $month to 25>> <h2>The year-end squeeze</h2> It is January, and the client's financial year ends on 31 March. <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: Claire Hendry, Client Programme Lead</div>Your forecast shows a £400,000 underspend this financial year. If we underspend, finance will cut our allocation for next year, and GROW with it. If we spend it, I can argue for a ''£2 million increase'' next year: enough for another challenge fund round and around 1,500 more jobs. Is there any way you can spend it by March?</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Spend it on equipment, extra workshops and prepayments. It could fund another round and 1,500 more jobs.|E09a]] [[Reforecast: explain the causes and propose moving the money into next year.|E09b]] [[Bring forward Year 3 activities that are ready, with the client's agreement, and reforecast the rest.|E09c]]</div>

You hit the number. Claire is relieved, tells her director that GROW "always delivers", and secures a provisional increase. The March scramble leaves the team frazzled. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -10 5 -10 0 "Spending to hit a number buys poor value for money, and auditors notice.">><<rel "client" 15 -15 "the year-end spending spree that auditors queried under her name, and the increase, with the extra challenge fund round, that was withdrawn as a result">></span> <<meme "brrr">> <span class="chips"><<rel "team" -5 -5 "the March spending scramble">></span> <<nextstep "E10">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>Claire is disappointed but appreciates the honesty. She uses your explanation to manage expectations internally, and the money is reprofiled into the next financial year. Finance still trims next year's allocation slightly, and the reprofiled money comes with tighter conditions. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 0 5 -5 "The client prefers an accurate forecast to a surprise. Tell them early.">><<rel "client" -5 10 "a forecast she could rely on when her own budget was under pressure">><<rel "team" 0 0>></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "E10">>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>You identify £250,000 of Year 3 activities that are ready to go, including an approved challenge fund round and a planned upgrade of the registration system. The client agrees, and the remaining £150,000 is reforecast with a clear explanation. Some of the work brought forward is less polished than it would have been. The team works flat out to get it ready. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -5 10 0 0 "The best response to underspend combines real, planned activity with honest forecasting.">><<rel "client" 5 5 "a solution that helped her without creating risk">><<rel "team" -5 5 "bringing work forward that was genuinely ready">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "E10">>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 4">><<set $month to 28>> <h2>The portal launch</h2> GROW has built Marenta's new ''online business registration portal''. It will cut the time to register a business from 30 days to 3. <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: DG Ruth Okafor, MIEA</div>The Minister wants to launch the portal live at the ''National Investment Summit in six weeks''. During the launch she plans to present GROW with the summit's ''Investment Reform Champion'' award. Three major investors will be in the room, deciding whether to build new factories in Marenta, and she intends to announce that Marenta will ask the donor for a ''GROW Phase 2'' to take the reforms to every province. Please don't let us down.</div> Your developers say it needs ''ten more weeks'' of testing. Load testing has not been done, and payment integration with the bank is still unstable. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Launch it live at the summit. Investors are ready to commit, and Phase 2 is on the table.|E10a]] [[Propose a guided demonstration at the summit, with the full launch after testing.|E10b]] [[Buy extra developer time to finish testing fast, and launch just after the summit.|E10c]]</div>

The Minister launches the portal on stage to applause and hands GROW the award. Two of the three investors ask for follow-up meetings, and the Minister's speech leads the evening news. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -15 5 -10 10 "Hitting a launch date with something that doesn't work is not delivery.">><<rel "cpt" 15 -20 "a portal that crashed in front of investors, the investors who walked away, and a Phase 2 request that was quietly dropped">><<rel "team" 5 -15 "the all-nighters after the portal crash">></span> <<nextstep "Crash">>

The Minister is annoyed that she won't have a live launch, and DG Okafor has to manage her. The guided demonstration goes well. Eight weeks later the portal goes live without a hitch, and registrations triple. The developers are relieved to have time to finish testing. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 5 0 5 -5 "Negotiating a launch date to protect quality builds trust that outlasts the disappointment.">><<rel "cpt" -5 15 "a portal that worked first time and made the Minister look good">><<rel "team" 5 5 "a launch they were proud of">></span> <<nextstep "Year3Check">>

Extra developers get testing done in seven weeks. The Minister launches the portal a week after the summit, with the investors joining by video call, and it works. The bill is large, and it comes straight out of your contingency. The developers work through two weekends. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 0 -15 0 5 "Buying your way out of a delay can work, but the money comes out of something else.">><<rel "cpt" 10 0>><<rel "team" -5 0>></span> <<nextstep "Year3Check">>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 4">><<set $month to 28>> <h2>Three days after the summit</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">💥 Breaking news</span>Three days after the summit, 4,000 people try to register on the new portal at once. The system crashes, and the payment page shows an error message. A photo of the error, next to the Minister's award, goes viral.</div> <<meme "taskfailed">> <<nextstep "Year3Check">>

<<if $creep gte 2>><<goto "Audit">><<else>><<goto "E11">><</if>>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 5">><<set $month to 29>> <h2>The contract audit</h2> <div class="sit"><span class="tag">🔍 Audit</span>The client's commercial team carries out a contract compliance audit. They find activities and spend that do not appear anywhere in your contract or approved change requests:<<print setup.auditList()>></div> Some of it was agreed informally, but nothing is in writing. <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Provide all the records, accept the findings and agree a corrective plan.|Audit_a]] [[Explain that much of it was agreed with Claire and the DG at the time, and ask the auditors to take that into account.|Audit_b]]</div>

Some costs are declared ineligible, but your transparency is noted. The client agrees a corrective action plan and a proper change-control log going forward. Claire is embarrassed by the findings, even though she appreciates your openness. Pulling together every record takes the team a fortnight. <span class="chips"><<impact 10 0 -10 5 0 "When scope creep is found, transparency limits the damage. Verbal agreements don't protect you.">><<rel "client" -5 5 "your transparency during the audit">><<rel "team" -5 0>></span> <<nextstep "E11">>

Claire is put in the position of having to confirm or deny conversations she half-remembers. Without written evidence, the client treats the costs as ineligible and escalates concerns about ASI's commercial controls. The dispute drags on for weeks. <span class="chips"><<impact -5 0 -15 -15 0 "If it isn't written down, it wasn't agreed. Pointing at the client makes it worse.">><<rel "client" -15 0>><<rel "team" -10 0>></span> <<nextstep "E11">>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 6">><<set $month to 30>> <h2>Losing a key expert</h2> A participant at a GROW bootcamp raised a safeguarding concern about one of the programme's consultants. You did exactly what policy requires: you reported it to the client the same day, removed the consultant from all duties pending an independent investigation, and made sure the participant was supported. The client has thanked you for your prompt handling. Now you have a delivery problem. The consultant was your strongest SME finance expert and central to the next challenge fund round, due in ''eight weeks''. The Minister is launching the round personally, and the client has invited GROW to present it at a showcase in the donor's capital. <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: DG Ruth Okafor, MIEA</div>I understand you have staffing difficulties. The Minister's launch date is fixed, and she has already announced it. I trust you will find a way.</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Postpone the launch by a month and bring in a qualified replacement.|E11a]] [[Keep the date: promote your two strongest junior advisers to run the round.|E11b]] [[Launch on the announced date with a smaller first round, and expand it later.|E11c]]</div>

<<run setup.fatigueCheck()>>The Minister is annoyed about the new date, and the DG has to manage her. The replacement expert is excellent, though her day rate is eye-watering, and the round launches a month later with strong applications. The showcase goes ahead with a better story to tell. Claire appreciates the early warning, and the replacement takes the pressure off the team. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 5 -5 5 -5 "When you lose key capacity, reset the plan openly rather than letting quality absorb the shock.">><<rel "cpt" -5 10 "a round that attracted strong applicants and made the Minister look good">><<rel "client" 5 5 "an honest early warning about the delay">><<rel "team" 5 5 "a replacement who took the pressure off">></span> <<print setup.fatigue()>> <<nextstep "E12">>

<<set $roundRushed to true>> The launch happens on the day, with the Minister on stage and a good showcase in the donor's capital. Your two junior advisers are thrilled with the promotion. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -15 0 -5 5 "Protecting a date at the expense of the team's capacity usually moves the problem, it doesn't solve it.">><<rel "cpt" 10 -10 "a rushed round with confused applicants and weak selections">><<rel "team" 5 -15 "two junior advisers left to sink or swim">></span> <<nextstep "E12">>

The round launches on the announced date, and the Minister is relieved. The team is relieved at the smaller workload. <span class="chips"><<impact -10 0 0 -5 5 "Changing what you deliver after it has been announced is still a scope change, and it needs to be agreed and explained first.">><<rel "cpt" 5 -10 "discovering that the round was half the size she had announced">><<rel "client" 0 -5 "a scaled-back round that took her by surprise">><<rel "team" 5 0>></span> <<nextstep "E12">>

<<set $when to "Year 3 · Month 9">><<set $month to 33>> <h2>The exit</h2> GROW has six months left, the team is already stretched, and ''Claire'' has signalled that the client is unlikely to fund a cost extension. Everyone has a view on how GROW should end: <div class="memo"><div class="from">From: DG Ruth Okafor, head of MIEA (your counterpart since the election)</div><<if $styled.includes("E10a")>>After the summit, Phase 2 will be a hard sell, but I want to try. <</if>>Keep everything running at full pace. If GROW shows momentum, I will ask the donor's Ambassador directly for a ''£6 million Phase 2'' to take the portal and the challenge fund nationwide. Claire's team may say no, but the Ambassador can overrule them. Oh, and the Minister would love a closing conference, where she plans to honour GROW with a ''national award for services to enterprise''.</div> <div class="lbl">Your decision</div> <div class="choices">[[Spend the final months handing the portal and fund over to the agency, and training its staff.|E12a]] [[Keep everything running at full pace and back the DG's push for a £6 million nationwide Phase 2.|E12b]] [[Hold the closing conference and accept the national award, to inspire other ministries.|E12c]] [[Do the handover, with a modest closing event for the Minister.|E12d]]</div>

DG Okafor is disappointed that you are planning an exit rather than an extension. Together you agree a transition plan: MIEA, the agency, takes over the portal, a local bank, Marenta Commercial Bank, agrees to co-run the challenge fund, and twelve MIEA staff are trained to run both. The team is sad to be planning its own exit. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 10 0 5 5 "Sustainability is designed in during the final months, not announced at the end.">><<rel "cpt" -5 15 "reforms her agency now owns and runs">><<rel "team" -5 10 "leaving with work they were proud of">></span> <<nextstep "Final Review">>

The DG's letter goes to the Ambassador, and MIEA starts planning the nationwide roll-out. The team is energised by the prospect of going nationwide. Claire is unimpressed that the DG has gone over her head to the Ambassador. <span class="chips"><<impact -5 0 -10 -5 0 "Planning for an extension that doesn't come leaves no plan for the exit.">><<rel "cpt" 10 -15 "a promised Phase 2 that never came, and a programme that simply stopped">><<rel "client" -5 0>><<rel "team" 5 -15 "working flat out for a Phase 2 that never came">></span> <<nextstep "Final Review">>

<<set $conference to true>>The conference is a great success. The Minister presents GROW with the national award, Claire meets several entrepreneurs, and the press coverage is excellent. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 -5 -5 0 -5 "Visibility isn't sustainability, and an award isn't impact.">><<rel "cpt" 10 -10 "a celebration of reforms that stalled within months">><<rel "client" 5 0>><<rel "team" 10 -5 "watching the reforms stall after the celebration">></span> <<nextstep "Final Review">>

The handover goes ahead, with a short closing event where the Minister thanks the team. The event takes more preparation than expected, so training is squeezed: twelve MIEA staff are trained, but less thoroughly than planned. <span class="chips"><<impact 0 5 -5 5 0 "Combining a handover with a celebration is often the realistic answer, but every hour spent on the event comes out of the handover.">><<rel "cpt" 5 10 "reforms her agency now runs, and a moment to celebrate them">><<rel "team" -5 5 "leaving with work they were proud of">></span> <<nextstep "Final Review">>

<<set $when to "Programme Completion Review">><<set $month to 36>> <h2>Programme Completion Review</h2> <div class="lbl">1 · Findings</div> <<if $roundRushed>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' Reviewers find that the final challenge fund round selected several weak firms, and three have already missed their first milestones. Funding weak firms means fewer jobs for the young people the round was meant to reach.</div> <<impact 0 -5 0 0 0 "Rushed selection decisions keep costing you long after the launch.">> <</if>> <<if $styled.includes("E12b")>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' The Phase 2 request was refused. GROW ended at full pace with no handover plan, and the challenge fund stopped the day the team left.</div> <</if>> <<if $conference>> <div class="find bad">''Finding:'' Six months on, few of the reforms celebrated at the closing conference are still running.</div> <</if>> <div class="lbl">2 · How people feel</div> <<settle "Final">> <div class="lbl">3 · The client's score</div> <<arscore>> <div class="lbl">4 · ASI internal review</div> <<print setup.internalReview()>> <<if setup.failed()>><<set $troubled to setup.worst()>><<else>><<set $troubled to -1>><</if>> <div class="continue">[[See your final scorecard →|Scorecard]]</div>

<<run setup.syncShown()>> <<set $when to "Programme complete">><<set $month to 36>> <<set _a to setup.avg(setup.allKeys)>> <<if $troubled gte 0>> <h1>A troubled finish</h1> <div class="find bad"><<print setup.troubledText[$troubled]>></div> <<meme "panik">> <<else>> <h1>Programme complete</h1> <<if _a gte 75>>''Exemplary programme leadership.'' GROW leaves Marenta with business registration that takes days not weeks, a challenge fund its own agency now runs, and thousands of new jobs. Both client and counterpart trust you, and the client invites ASI to help design what comes next. <<elseif _a gte 60>>''A solid programme.'' There were bruises along the way, but GROW delivered credible results: more businesses registered, more firms growing and more people in work, with partners who still trust you. <<elseif _a gte 45>>''A programme that survived.'' GROW reached the finish line, but the trade-offs you made mean fewer jobs and weaker reforms than Marenta needed, and some of them may not last. <<else>>''A programme in trouble.'' GROW limped to completion. Small businesses and young job-seekers saw little lasting benefit, the reforms are unlikely to survive, and neither the client nor the government is keen to repeat the experience.<</if>> <<if _a gte 75>><<meme "assignment">><<elseif _a gte 60>><<meme "success">><<elseif _a gte 45>><<meme "headout">><<else>><<meme "panik">><</if>> <</if>> <table class="score"> <tr><td>Scope</td><td>''$scope''</td></tr> <tr><td>Quality</td><td>''$quality''</td></tr> <tr><td>Expenditure</td><td>''$expend''</td></tr> <tr><td>Risk control</td><td>''$risk''</td></tr> <tr><td>Time</td><td>''$time''</td></tr> <tr><td>Client</td><td>''$client''</td></tr> <tr><td>Counterpart</td><td>''$cpt''</td></tr> <tr><td>Team</td><td>''$team''</td></tr> <tr><td>Annual Review scores</td><td>''<<print $reviews.join(" → ")>>''</td></tr> </table> <<print setup.pdType()>> <<print setup.saveBtn()>> <<include "Relationship debrief">> <h2>Your weakest area</h2> <<set _w to setup.worst()>><<if State.variables[setup.allKeys[_w]] gte 50>>Your lowest meter was <strong><<print setup.allNames[_w]>></strong>. It is still healthy, but it is where your trade-offs landed. Here is the lesson for when it goes wrong: <</if>><<print setup.debriefFor(_w)>> <<if $conference>><<meme "pigeon">><</if>> <h2>Lessons from your decisions</h2> <<for _l range $log>>* _l <</for>> <h2>The big ideas</h2> * ''Being liked now is not the same as being trusted later.'' The decisions that please a client or counterpart today are often the ones they blame you for at the next review. * ''Scope is managed through formal change control.'' "Yes, properly" beats both "yes, quietly" and a flat "no". * ''Every project management fundamental trades off against the others.'' Make the trade-offs visible and agree them with the client. * ''Escalate early.'' Tell the client about problems before they find out another way. * ''Forecast honestly.'' Surprises damage trust more than bad news does. <div class="podcast"><div class="podtag">🎧 Keep learning</div><div class="podtitle">ASI Learning: Top Three Things</div>Every situation in this game happens on real programmes. Our ''Top Three Things'' podcast series shares practical guidance on project delivery that is founded on our real-life experience. <div class="podlinks"><a class="podbtn apple" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/asi-project-delivery-guidance/id6789052634" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listen on Apple Podcasts</a><a class="podbtn spotify" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/033LRqQHnZWHobq6HdFndT?si=8e_ijt58RD2XwhZUgLZ9AQ&utm_source=copy-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listen on Spotify</a></div></div> <div class="continue"><<link "Play again">><<run Engine.restart()>><</link>></div>

<h2>Liked now, or trusted later?</h2> <<if $borrowed - $invested gte 20>> <div class="find bad">You leaned on short-term goodwill. Each time, the client, counterpart or team liked you more in the moment, and each time the bill arrived at the next review. This is the most common trap in programme management: decisions made to be liked, which end up producing a weaker programme and a worse relationship.</div> <<meme "drake">> <<elseif $invested - $borrowed gte 20>> <div class="find good">You mostly invested in trust. Several of your decisions disappointed people at the time, but the relationships ended stronger because the programme delivered and nobody was surprised.</div> <<meme "galaxy">> <<elseif $styles.rigid gte 3 and $styles.rigid gte $styles.pleaser>> <div class="find bad">You rarely traded goodwill for short-term wins, but you didn't build much trust either. Flat refusals protected the contract and cost you relationships. The decisions that pay back are the ones that say yes to the goal and use a proper process to get there.</div> <<meme "clause">> <<else>> <div class="find neutral">A mixed picture. Some decisions bought goodwill that later wore off, and others built trust that paid back. The table below shows which ones landed at each review.</div> <</if>> How the relationships moved at each review, when the hidden effects came due: <<print setup.relTable()>> <<if $creep gte 2>><<meme "always">><</if>>

<<run setup.syncShown()>> <<set _w to setup.worst()>> <<print setup.ending()>> <table class="score"> <tr><td>Scope</td><td>''$scope''</td></tr> <tr><td>Quality</td><td>''$quality''</td></tr> <tr><td>Expenditure</td><td>''$expend''</td></tr> <tr><td>Risk control</td><td>''$risk''</td></tr> <tr><td>Time</td><td>''$time''</td></tr> <tr><td>Client</td><td>''$client''</td></tr> <tr><td>Counterpart</td><td>''$cpt''</td></tr> <tr><td>Team</td><td>''$team''</td></tr> </table> <<print setup.pdType()>> <<print setup.saveBtn()>> <h2>The lesson</h2> <<print setup.debriefFor(_w)>> <<include "Relationship debrief">> <h2>Lessons from your decisions</h2> <<for _l range $log>>* _l <</for>> <div class="podcast"><div class="podtag">🎧 Keep learning</div><div class="podtitle">ASI Learning: Top Three Things</div>Every situation in this game happens on real programmes. Our ''Top Three Things'' podcast series shares practical guidance on project delivery that is founded on our real-life experience. <div class="podlinks"><a class="podbtn apple" href="https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/asi-project-delivery-guidance/id6789052634" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listen on Apple Podcasts</a><a class="podbtn spotify" href="https://open.spotify.com/show/033LRqQHnZWHobq6HdFndT?si=8e_ijt58RD2XwhZUgLZ9AQ&utm_source=copy-link" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Listen on Spotify</a></div></div> <div class="continue"><<link "Try again">><<run Engine.restart()>><</link>></div>