Produce a written scope decision with inclusions, exclusions, assumptions and approval.
The situation
In this fictional brief, teams disagree about who owns the next decision. The buyer wants an agreed decision map and a practical implementation sequence. Your offer is a focused operating-model review, but you must first establish whether its scope addresses the actual need.
A relevant delivery constraint is that the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops. Treat that as a fact in the exercise; do not remove it to make the sale easier.
| Your counterpart | a CEO dealing with a stalled operational initiative |
|---|---|
| Offer under discussion | a focused operating-model review |
| Evidence available | a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths |
| Terms to clarify | Define access to stakeholders, deliverables, decision owners and handover. |
How to approach scope negotiation
A useful question for this stage: “If we keep the current budget, which existing item should this replace?” Ask it when the conversation creates a reason for it, rather than reciting every question in order.
- List the requested change. Explain its effect on work, dependencies and timing. Offer a clear trade-off that the buyer can evaluate.
- Ground the discussion in the buyer’s work. Ask: “Which unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?” Listen for a concrete example before making a claim.
- Use evidence relevant to the decision: a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths. Explain what it demonstrates and what remains unverified.
- Produce a written scope decision with inclusions, exclusions, assumptions and approval.
Example exchange
An illustrative exchange. Real conversations will take a different path.
SellerWhich part of the outcome is essential, and which part could wait?
BuyerOur concern is that teams disagree about who owns the next decision. Also, the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops.
SellerWhich unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?
BuyerConsultants leave us with slides and no execution.
SellerLet us define the decisions, owners and implementation artefacts you need, and make handover a named deliverable.
SellerIf we keep the current budget, which existing item should this replace?
An industry-specific concern
Buyer: “Consultants leave us with slides and no execution.”
Possible response: “Let us define the decisions, owners and implementation artefacts you need, and make handover a named deliverable.”
Why this response helps: it acknowledges the concern, brings the discussion back to a verifiable requirement and leaves room for a different decision. Adapt the wording to what the buyer actually said.
Run the practice
- Prepare for two minutes. One person takes the seller role and one plays a CEO dealing with a stalled operational initiative. Read the offer and constraint separately from your preferred answer.
- Have a five-minute conversation focused on make changes to deliverables and responsibilities visible before agreeing a revised price or deadline. The buyer should answer consistently with the brief and ask for evidence when a claim is vague.
- Add this challenge: The buyer describes a substantial change as a small tweak. Ask for the actual requirement and assess it without arguing about the label.
- Pause for feedback. Quote one useful question and one missed opportunity. Repeat the difficult exchange using a different response.
- Finish by writing the actual agreement. A sensible option, when it fits, is to map one cross-team process and test the proposed ownership with its participants. A clear decision to pause is also a useful outcome.
What to avoid
| Common mistake | Accepting extra work verbally and hoping the team can absorb it. |
|---|---|
| A stronger direction | We can include that change once we agree what it replaces or how it changes the estimate. |
| Scope and claim boundary | Separate your recommendations from outcomes that depend on client execution. |
| What to measure in real work | the number of blocked decisions resolved with named owners. Establish a baseline and definition before interpreting a change. |
Your working sheet
Write your own version below. Notes are saved on this browser when local storage is available. Use Download to keep a separate copy; avoid adding confidential information on a shared device.
Example: teams disagree about who owns the next decision; the client team has limited time for interviews and workshops.
Example: If we keep the current budget, which existing item should this replace? Industry question: Which unresolved decision is holding the initiative back today?
Example: a worked example of roles, decision rights and escalation paths. Separate your recommendations from outcomes that depend on client execution.
Example: Propose a clear next step, such as: map one cross-team process and test the proposed ownership with its participants. Confirm the owner and date.
Review your work
Tick only what you can support with your answer or practice. This is a reflection checklist, not an automated assessment.
Questions about this resource
Who is this management consulting exercise for?
Founders, salespeople and account managers preparing for a conversation about a focused operating-model review. Adapt the brief to your real offer and authority before using it at work.
Can I use the example as a script?
Use the questions as prompts. Listen and respond to the buyer’s actual meaning. The target is to make changes to deliverables and responsibilities visible before agreeing a revised price or deadline, not to deliver a memorised speech.
How should I assess the result?
Produce a written scope decision with inclusions, exclusions, assumptions and approval. Use the three review questions below. The checklist is for reflection; it is not a validated prediction of sales performance.
Fictional training scenario. The dialogue illustrates response choices; it is not a customer testimonial or a record of a real sale. About these resources.