Two Million, Four Projects

Intervene on process, not content.

The group has 12 minutes and no decision. Adding a fifth opinion on Project 2 makes that worse. Instead:

'We have twelve minutes and nothing agreed. Can I suggest we spend sixty seconds fixing the criteria, then take each project once, in order?'

Then fix the criteria out loud - deliverability this year, savings, reversibility - and get a nod before moving on.

Bring B in explicitly.

'B, you mentioned something about Project 3's funding - could you say it again? I don't think we all caught it.'

This does three things at once: it surfaces information the group needs, it protects a colleague who has been talked over, and it signals to the assessor that you notice the room rather than only the task.

Give A a role that uses their energy.

'A, you've been tracking Project 2 - could you capture the criteria and the final numbers on the flipchart?'

This converts a monologue into a job. Do not confront A publicly; a contest costs more time than it saves.

Do not state your conclusion yet. You need B's information first, and a decision the group owns will survive longer than one imposed.

Make the case once, with numbers, then stop.

'One thing before we close: cutting 4 loses the only option that reduces waiting times this year, and keeping 2 commits £800k to something with nothing delivered in the current period. If we're keeping 2, can we at least agree it's phased?'

One statement, one question. Repeating it is what gets remembered as not being a team player.

Then test the reasoning rather than the decision.

Ask what evidence supports Project 2 not slipping a year. If the answer is 'political commitment', that is a legitimate answer and you should treat it as one - political commitments are real constraints, and you may be undervaluing them.

If the group holds, commit and improve the outcome.

• Propose a contingency: phase Project 4, seek the £400k from another budget line, or stage the spend on Project 2 so it is reversible.
• Make sure the group's rationale is articulated before the close, so the assessor hears a decision rather than a drift.
• Do not disengage, sulk or reopen the question after it is closed.

What is being assessed is how you handle disagreement, not whether you win it. A well-argued concession scores better than a late victory.

Quality, not volume.

You need roughly three high-value contributions in the remaining twelve minutes, not fifteen small ones. Overcorrecting into constant speech replicates exactly the behaviour that is costing the group time, and the assessor will notice the symmetry.

The three contributions

1. A process proposal - the timeboxed criteria setting above. Concrete, short, useful.
2. Surfacing someone else - bringing B's constraint into the open. This is the single highest-value move available and it costs fifteen seconds.
3. A summary at the close - 'So we've agreed X and Y; the open risk is Z.' Visible, genuinely useful, and low-risk.

Practical supports

• If no one is keeping time, offer to do it. It legitimises frequent, brief interjections without competing for airtime.
• Sit forward, take notes visibly, and speak in the first minute after the next natural pause rather than waiting for a gap that will not come.
• Do not apologise for having been quiet - drawing attention to it wastes the remaining time and reads as anxious rather than reflective.