Can the leaders make one delivery promise?
A shared objective needs one accountable leader and real capacity from the other teams.
“sometimes you are the leader, sometimes you support another leader.” (opens the source)
The question
You are Meridian’s CEO. Functional leaders have promised their preferred plans. Capacity slots are one authorised specialist’s full-quarter allocation. AI coding support cannot create more integration or safety-review authority.
| Slots | |
|---|---|
| Available people-quarter slots | 12 |
| Required to run existing services | 6 |
| Reliability minimum | 2 |
| Reliability preferred plan | 4 |
| Mission for two-market launch | 4 |
| Mission for one-market pilot | 2 |
Choose one mission scope. The run and reliability minimums are fixed.
“Choose a feasible scope and name the accountable leader.”
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: Commit a plan that fits
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Commit twelve slots and state the reduced scope.
The strong move. The same person cannot be promised to two full-quarter commitments.
Approve all preferred plans and ask teams to work harder.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“All preferred plans need 6 + 4 + 4 = 14 slots. A full launch can fit at 6 run + 2 reliability + 4 mission = 12. Explicitly reduce reliability’s preferred plan to its minimum.”
Why it works: The same person cannot be promised to two full-quarter commitments.
Step 2: Name the leader and the commitments
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Name one accountable leader and the supplying teams.
The strong move. A shared objective still needs clear final accountability.
Make every functional head jointly accountable for every decision.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Appoint one mission leader. Each functional leader commits named capacity and a sign-off owner. Escalate conflicts over those commitments to the executive team before they threaten the delivery promise.”
Why it works: A shared objective still needs clear final accountability.
Step 3: Revise the delivery promise
Two specialists become unavailable. Only 10 slots remain; the run and reliability minimums still apply.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Commit the one-market pilot with ten slots.
The strong move. The capacity constraint changed; the original scope no longer fits.
Count the AI assistant as two authorised specialists.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Ten slots allow 6 run + 2 reliability + 2 mission. Change the two-market launch to a one-market pilot. AI support may change tasks, but it does not create the missing authorised reviewers.”
Why it works: The capacity constraint changed; the original scope no longer fits.
Step 4: Publish one updated commitment
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Use one scope and one return-to-scale gate.
The strong move. Conflicting promises undo the resource decision.
Leave the old launch date in the board pack.
Tempting, but it misses something. This move misses the evidence or constraint in this step.
See how a strong candidate says it
“Tell the board and all functional leaders the same pilot scope, one accountable leader, committed slots and review date. Record the evidence needed before the second market is authorized.”
Why it works: Conflicting promises undo the resource decision.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Commit to one market after the capacity loss.
- Because
- The mandatory work leaves only two mission slots.
- What would change it
- Restored authorised capacity or a smaller validated scope could support another market.
Two specialists leave. Which promise changes, and who tells the board?
Common traps
- Double-booking specialists.
- Treating AI support as sign-off authority.
Check your answer
- I counted the full-quarter commitments.
- I protected the fixed minimums.
- I assigned final accountability.
- I changed the scope and review gate.
Last reviewed Nov 10, 2026