Put the measures, baseline and constraint in one record. Show what can fit under the stated assumptions, ask the right person to choose the priority, and agree what the evidence report will say if another target remains unmet.
Preserve the original basis before adding the new measure
Start with the accepted assignment and the evidence already gathered. Separate three things:
- Commissioned work: the analysis, comparison or recommendation you have agreed to deliver.
- Operating target: what the client wants its process to achieve.
- Recorded result: what a defined source and observation actually show.
A newly requested target does not establish a result. It also does not, by itself, explain whether the commissioned work needs to change.
Keep the earlier definition and baseline alongside the new request. If you overwrite them, the final report may appear to judge the whole engagement against a condition introduced halfway through it.
A fictional case: twenty cases and a fixed review block
Willow Process Advisory and Brookfield Service Desk are invented. Every person, record, time and quantity below is fictional. The example is a small capacity model, not a customer result, industry time standard or forecast for another team.
Brookfield has commissioned a workflow assessment: document the current process, compare feasible options and present a decision note. The engagement is already in progress. Its agreed deliverable is that evidence and recommendation; it does not promise a particular daily completion rate.
Baseline record B1 describes a prior illustrative batch of 20 eligible cases. The existing check takes six minutes per case in this model, and B1 records all 20 completed within a 120-minute review block. One fictional day does not establish typical demand, future capacity or accuracy.
The decision below concerns a separate prospective batch, P1: 20 eligible cases available at the start of another 120-minute block, none yet reviewed. These are net reviewer-minutes for this task, with no other work included in the block. B1 is the old-method reference; its completed work is not part of P1.
During the assessment, Brookfield requests a revised check for P1 requiring 12 minutes in total per case, including the original checking steps. P1 has no earlier review work to credit, so the full 12 minutes is required for each case in this model. Brookfield wants all 20 P1 cases completed within their 120-minute block. No additional reviewer time is confirmed.
The consultant records the position before suggesting a priority:
| Decision field | Filled position in this fictional case |
|---|---|
| Original baseline | B1: a prior 20-case reference batch; existing six-minute check; 20 completions within 120 net reviewer-minutes. P1 is a separate, unreviewed batch |
| Completion measure | Number of P1's 20 cases completed by the end of its block; keep the denominator at 20 |
| New review condition | A case can be marked complete only after the full revised 12-minute check is recorded |
| Unchanged constraint | 120 net reviewer-minutes; no extra capacity or shorter approved method established |
| Capacity comparison | Old-method reference: 20 × 6 = 120 minutes. Full revised method for all 20 unreviewed P1 cases: 20 × 12 = 240 minutes |
| Conflict | P1's revised method needs 120 more reviewer-minutes than its available block in this model |
| Decision owner | Alex, the client operations sponsor, is explicitly confirmed as able to choose the operating priority and approve the internal review method |
| Evidence owner | Consultant Sam retains B1, the new request and calculations; client coordinator Jo will retain the later case-status and review records |
The conflict follows from these particular inputs. Before applying the same reasoning to a real team, check actual task times, case differences, interruptions and usable capacity. An untested time estimate should remain labelled as an assumption.
A completed review record is also a process measure. It does not, by itself, establish that every decision was accurate or that customers were satisfied.
Give the client choices with the unmet condition visible
At 12 minutes per case, P1's 120-minute block can accommodate 10 complete reviews in this model: 120 ÷ 12 = 10. That leaves 10 of P1's original 20 cases pending.
P1: what fits in the time block
Fictional planning model
20 unreviewed P1 cases
Full revised check: 12 minutes per case
Within the existing block
120 ÷ 12 = 10 full reviews fit
Under this plan
10 of the original 20 remain pending
Keep the full batch denominator visible
Sam presents three choices. None is labelled “meet both targets” under unchanged conditions.
| Choice to assess | What fits in the model | Condition that remains unmet or unconfirmed |
|---|---|---|
| Retain the original six-minute method | All 20 P1 cases fit in 120 minutes | Does not meet the new review condition; Alex would have to explicitly decide against introducing that condition for P1 |
| Prioritise the full revised check within the existing block | 10 complete P1 reviews fit; 10 P1 cases remain pending | P1's all-20 completion target is unmet; an owner and next review point are needed for the pending cases |
| Keep the revised check and seek more capacity | All 20 unreviewed P1 cases require 240 reviewer-minutes in total | A further 120 net reviewer-minutes must be confirmed; their availability and effect on P1's completion window are unknown |
Do not treat the third row as a staffing promise. A mathematical requirement is not confirmed availability. Do not quietly shorten the revised check to make the numbers fit either; that would change the condition being discussed.
If the client disputes an input, resolve that point first. A different usable time allowance or a verified shorter method could change the choice. Preserve the original calculation and identify the revised input so the reasoning remains traceable.
Record the selected priority and its reporting consequence
In this fictional case, Alex chooses the second option for P1. The full revised check takes priority within P1's existing block. Jo will identify the 10 P1 cases to be reviewed through the client's existing prioritisation process and keep the other 10 visibly pending. Alex owns the decision about their next review point; no extra capacity or completion date is promised in this note.
Sam's decision record reads:
Alex has selected the full 12-minute check within P1's 120-minute block. The plan accommodates 10 of P1's original 20 unreviewed cases under the stated assumptions. P1's all-20 completion target remains unmet by this plan. Pending P1 cases retain their open status. Jo will record actual completions and full-check evidence against P1; Sam will report those observations separately from this planning calculation. Alex will decide the next review point for P1's remaining cases.
The selected plan has a clear limit. It is not evidence that 10 P1 cases have actually been completed. If later P1 records show 10 completions, that is 10/20, or 50% of P1's original batch. Reporting only “10 of 10 selected cases complete” would conceal the other half of P1 unless both figures and their different scopes were shown.
The client may choose a different option. The useful record still needs the same elements: chosen priority, retained constraint, unmet condition, decision owner and the evidence required next.
Deliver a report that can show a mixed result
For this assessment, Sam's report contains the prior reference B1, the separate P1 batch definition, the new condition and its introduction point, the capacity comparison, Alex's choice and the outstanding capacity question. Jo's later P1 operating records belong in a separate results section when they exist. Until then, actual P1 completions under the revised check remain unobserved. The two batches do not, by themselves, establish a before-and-after effect.
Report P1's two measures separately. A later full-check record for each completed P1 case would not establish that its all-20 target was met. Twenty P1 completions without the revised-check evidence would not establish that the new condition was met. Avoid averaging the two into an unexplained “overall success” score.
Review the commissioned assessment through its agreed process. If the client needs a different deliverable, resolve that explicitly under the actual arrangement. A conflicting target does not automatically make unfinished agreed work complete or authorise another paid assignment.
For a genuinely additional work request, use the scope, fee and date decision guide. For an assignment that has not started, the pilot acceptance guide helps define what the client will review before commissioning it.
Reuse this measure-change record
Copy the following blank aid for your next mid-project review:
Existing assignment: [commissioned evidence or deliverable and review process]
Original measure and baseline: [definition, population, period, source and limits]
New condition: [exact wording, requester and point introduced]
Shared constraint: [capacity, time, access or other confirmed boundary]
Compatibility check: [calculation or evidence, with assumptions visible]
Choices: [what each can satisfy and what remains unmet or unknown]
Selected priority: [explicit decision, authorised owner and record]
Reporting rule: [retain original denominator, show each measure separately]
Pending action: [owner, next decision and evidence still needed]
Use the record in your next client review to resolve the actual trade-off. If you want to discuss applying it, contact The Clients Generator team with an anonymised description of the two conditions and the decision still needed. A specific evidence question gives that conversation a useful starting point.