Teaching Guide — Courses 11 and 12

Series · Northbank case · Glossary · References

Use this guide after reading the learner courses. Keep answer guidance separate during assessed work.

The case supports several defensible recommendations. Assess their basis, conditions, consequences, and authority. Do not require one preferred organizational arrangement.

Governing case facts

Preserve these distinctions throughout both courses:

• A02 Rev 1 approves 18 litres per second for development. A05 proposes 22 litres per second.
• A04 records 600 V at the site connection. B01 offers 480 V motors without accepted compatibility evidence.
• The hydraulic operating basis remains incomplete. A06 leaves actual legal applicability unresolved.
• C03 forecasts 265,000 against the authorized 240,000. The difference is 25,000 training currency units.
• C03 excludes the 22 litres per second proposal. Its item totals include recorded actual expenditure.
• Sequential C03 delivery reaches the end of Week 11. Installation ends in Week 13, commissioning in Week 14, and handover in Week 15.
• Week 12 remains the target. C03 does not amend it.
• C04 supports one observed normal-condition flow result. It cannot support complete acceptance.
• The Phase 4 time change does not establish resolution of earlier design or authorization gaps.

Do not add a legal clause, technical calculation, selected configuration, test result, or approval to close a gap.

A facilitator decision can create a new simulated event under D03. Identify its scope explicitly. Preserve the preceding source basis.

Course 11 session directions

Use a six-hour session plan. Divide it across sessions if needed.

Select the independent reader before writing begins. A mentor can perform this function for individual study.

Ask each learner which claim remains unestablished. Use that answer to distinguish further necessary work from optional improvements.

Course 11 knowledge-check answers

11.1 — How does a feedback explanation differ from a dependency map?

A dependency map identifies inputs or conditions that an activity needs. A feedback explanation identifies effects that return to influence an earlier condition.

The explanation must give a mechanism and time relationship. Source evidence must distinguish observed connections from plausible hypotheses.

11.2 — Why can a document-count report conceal delivery risk?

It measures activity or output count. It does not establish resolved interfaces, technical adequacy, configuration identity, or operating readiness.

D02 shows these omitted matters. A high count can coexist with an untested changeover function and an unsupported handover claim.

11.3 — Which decision rights remain separate when the sponsor approves expenditure?

Technical suitability remains with the competent technical authorities. Procurement requires the authorized purchase package. Operations receives its assigned readiness and operating responsibilities.

The sponsor's decision cannot determine an unresolved law or erase professional obligations. A01 and A06 preserve those limits.

11.4 — How should reversibility affect the timing of an uncertain decision?

Gather consequential information before a difficult-to-reverse commitment where proportionate. Define the investigation's limit, owner, and decision purpose.

Compare the consequences of delay with those of proceeding. Reversibility does not automatically justify indefinite investigation or an unsupported release.

11.5 — What evidence is needed before the proposed activity overlap can support a Week 12 recovery claim?

The team needs defined activity boundaries, installation readiness, commissioning prerequisites, resource availability, access arrangements, and a credible revised sequence.

The relevant competent parties must examine the proposal. D01 supplies no agreed boundary or prerequisite analysis.

The duration saving must be supported by that sequence. Calling work parallel does not remove its physical or technical dependencies.

11.6 — What would make the response to D02 an institutional improvement rather than another report?

An assigned practice must change where it affects a future activity. For example, readiness reporting could require open acceptance conditions and disposition evidence.

Name the owner and the consuming decision. Examine whether the change improves the next readiness decision.

The response must also permit adverse evidence to reach competent examination. Adding a register without changing its use is insufficient.

Course 11 defensible reasoning

A satisfactory diagnosis can identify three connected failures: incomplete technical inputs, an execution forecast beyond commitments, and overstated readiness.

It must distinguish these findings from an explanation of their causes. D02 creates a plausible incentive conflict. It does not establish a person's motive.

One defensible direction is bounded continuation of investigations and unaffected work. Dependent commitments remain controlled while the sponsor considers credible options.

Another defensible direction is suspension of affected procurement or use. It must identify what remains active and how continuing obligations are preserved.

A recommendation for scope reduction must identify the required sponsor decision. It must also demonstrate what useful result the reduced scope could achieve.

A recommendation for temporary use must request an assessed operating basis. D01 does not establish that the existing arrangement is suitable.

Assess possible effects on workers, operators, affected people, and the environment. Require evidence before a possible consequence becomes a claimed hazard finding.

The learner must retain truthful readiness reporting despite the bonus. A confidential source requires an appropriate reporting route and authorized access.

The case contains no confidentiality clause. A learner must identify missing conditions instead of inventing a prohibition or disclosure entitlement.

Course 11 assignment criteria

Use the five criteria in the learner course. Apply the following observations:

Rate each criterion as meets, needs repair, or insufficient evidence. Recheck the affected criterion after repair.

Course 12 preparation

Allow twelve working hours using the learner phase table. Give each participant the common case, glossary, and blank record pages.

Use blank pages or a shared folder for these records:

• Source index and project basis.
• Interfaces and readiness actions.
• Decisions and changes.
• Forecast comparisons and calculations.
• Findings and examination plans.
• Receiving recommendation and continuation memorandum.

Templates are optional. The necessary relationships must be visible in the saved work.

Assign role numbers and the initial cards. Confirm the rotation rule. Select an independent reviewer for each candidate before examination.

If a reviewer produced an affected item, assign a different reviewer. Another team or a mentor can provide this examination.

The facilitator represents decision authorities only within the simulation. No simulated decision establishes real technical competence, legal compliance, or operating permission.

Release sequence

Keep D03 order. Release the stated records at each event. Ask learners to state the current source set before preparing their request.

Learners may know later packets from earlier courses. Assess chronological reasoning by the declared source set, rather than pretending they lack that knowledge.

Use the standard decision scripts below for a common track. Record the chosen script as a new event only after the request is received.

Each decision record needs an identity, authority, question, exact disposition, conditions, and affected outputs. Use identifiers such as DEC-P01.

Do not imply a decision through silence. An unanswered request remains open.

Phase 0 direction script

Say: “Establish the approved working basis from Packet A and B03. Give each unresolved interface an owner and a point of need.”

Ask: “Which conditions prevent the next dependent commitment? Which useful work can proceed under the current authority?”

Expected outputs identify 18 litres per second, the 240,000 budget, Week 12 target, and A01 decision rights.

They must preserve hydraulic, legal, capacity, protection, and changeover uncertainties. Proposed assignments and dates must have a declared planning status.

Check the source index for A04. A07 demonstrates why its earlier omission matters.

Event 1 — Supplier acceptance

Say: “The supplier requests acceptance of B01 within two working days. It wants to preserve the proposed delivery slot.”

Release B01 and B02. Do not imply that the proposed slot is confirmed.

Ask the procurement participant: “What precise package and commitment are you asking us to authorize?”

Ask the discipline participant: “What does A04 establish? Which further questions does it leave open?”

Standard technical disposition: “Acceptance of B01 is withheld. Prepare a corrected project-specific submission for technical examination. No equipment order is authorized by this disposition.”

Record the simulated authority and its remit. A technical decision does not authorize expenditure.

An adequate response identifies 600 V versus 480 V. It also identifies the incomplete configuration, selected curve, operating cases, and hydraulic basis.

Do not accept “change the voltage label” as a technical repair. Compatibility and the selected equipment need competent examination.

Review the current supplier-response revision. Return findings to its producer. Confirm the response can guide procurement without an unsupported release.

Event 2 — Operations request

Say: “Operations requests adoption of 22 litres per second and automatic changeover. The sponsor previously requested an impact assessment.”

Release A05. Ask the team to distinguish the proposed requirements from A02.

Standard sponsor disposition: “Continue the impact assessment. A02 remains the approved scope. This decision does not authorize the proposed increase or additional expenditure.”

Record the open decision and required evidence. Ask the team to preserve the 18 litres per second working basis.

An adequate assessment traces effects into selection, electrical work, controls, civil loads, installation, examination, maintenance, cost, and timing where relevant.

It must identify missing input instead of asserting every effect as a known design change. Automatic changeover needs assessment as a proposed function.

A02 already requires confirmation of changeover needs. That obligation does not establish approval of automatic changeover.

Event 3 — Forecast

Say: “C03 arrives for the existing 18 litres per second scope. The sponsor asks whether the original commitments remain credible.”

Release C01 to C03. Ask for the first calculation without overlapping activities.

Expected cost difference: 265,000 minus 240,000 equals 25,000. C03 is a forecast and includes actual expenditure in its item totals.

Expected sequence:

The sequential forecast is three weeks beyond the Week 12 target. It excludes the 22 litres per second proposal.

Standard sponsor disposition: “The forecast is acknowledged. Prepare credible continuation options. The authorized budget and target remain unchanged pending a commitment decision.”

This response does not authorize spending the difference. Ask the team to distinguish remaining authority from the forecast need.

Accept alternative recovery proposals only as proposals. Require evidence for supplier conditions, resource capacity, prerequisites, and any assumed savings.

Event 4 — Acceptance claim

Say: “The simulation now moves to the later installation scenario in C04. Its cover sheet claims complete acceptance.”

Release C04 and C05. Say: “The observed installation does not establish resolution of earlier gaps.”

Ask: “Which claim does the test support? Which claims still lack evidence? What would the receiving party need?”

Standard technical disposition: “Complete acceptance is not substantiated. Retain the observed normal-condition result. Establish intended behavior and its examination basis. Prepare needed examination and configuration work.”

Standard receiving disposition: “Handover cannot be reported complete on this record. Identify the operating information, training, maintenance, and readiness conditions still required.”

Record the two decisions separately. Neither makes the observed test invalid. Both constrain the conclusions drawn from it.

Expected findings distinguish incomplete hydraulic and configuration information, unexercised scenarios, and incomplete receiving arrangements. C05 leaves training and spare parts unresolved.

C04 leaves changeover, power interruption, alarm response, and maintenance isolation unexercised. Assess coverage against established intended behavior before treating a specific test as required.

Untested behavior is unestablished. The supplied record does not demonstrate failure in those scenarios.

The obsolete operating-instruction reference must receive a controlled repair. Do not infer an installed voltage configuration from that instruction alone.

The assurance plan must identify prerequisites, responsible examiners, acceptance conditions, and the proposed claim each activity can support.

Event 5 — Incentives and adverse evidence

Say: “D02 now reveals the handover bonus and document-count reporting. The junior engineer's concern was marked closed without disposition evidence.”

Release D01 and D02. Ask: “How does this change your account of readiness, reporting, and the next decision?”

Standard sponsor direction: “Provide a truthful current status and a credible continuation recommendation. Preserve unsupported acceptance conditions. Prepare evidence before any new scope or commitment decision.”

Ask the team to examine the concern's basis. Its closure lacks recorded examination or authorized disposition.

A defensible response corrects that status, assigns competent examination, and traces the effect on acceptance. It does not assume personal misconduct.

Ask: “Who could be affected by premature reliance? Which consequences need evidence? Where must the concern be reported?”

Expected reasoning addresses workers and operators where relevant. It can also identify public or environmental questions without claiming a proven hazard.

Ask: “Which interests could distort the report? How will you preserve truthful readiness and appropriate access to its evidence?”

Accept reporting through a responsible, authorized route. Require learners to identify missing confidentiality conditions without inventing a law or contract restriction.

The response must assess the alternate supplier slot, overlap proposal, and temporary-use proposal. D01 supplies insufficient supporting conditions for each.

Optional decision branches

Use a branch only when the submitted request identifies the necessary basis. State its exact meaning as a new simulated event.

Grant: Authorize a bounded investigation or planning activity within its defined resources and remit. State the conditions and affected outputs.

Qualify: Permit only the part of a proposal that has adequate grounds. Keep the remaining request open with its required evidence.

Reject: Decline the proposed action with a reason tied to evidence, authority, or conditions. Identify the next permitted work if applicable.

A proposed scope or budget amendment requires the relevant sponsor decision. It must not silently alter A02 or conceal the earlier decision basis.

A technical approval requires adequate technical evidence and the relevant simulated authority. The supplied packets cannot substantiate broad equipment or operating acceptance.

If a branch needs additional evidence, supply it as a clearly identified fictional case record. Preserve the common-track assessment separately.

Do not create favorable facts merely to allow a participant to finish. An accurately bounded recommendation can complete the learning assignment.

Phase 6 — Integrated defense

Use the first twenty minutes for the team presentation. Give the reviewers thirty minutes for questions and findings.

Allow fifty minutes for repair. Use the last twenty minutes to confirm affected repairs and identify the remaining decision requests.

Select questions from this script:

1. “Show the source and authority for the flow requirement used in your purchase recommendation.”
2. “Show where the voltage discrepancy affects your interfaces and receiving recommendation.”
3. “Explain which C03 assumptions your schedule uses.”
4. “Identify the claim supported by C04 and the broader claims it cannot support.”
5. “Explain the limits of the sponsor's latest decision.”
6. “Show the response to the junior engineer's concern and its effect on current readiness.”
7. “Explain what would change your recommended continuation direction.”
8. “Show who receives each continuing obligation.”

An answer must point to the current package. An oral correction alone does not repair a contradictory saved output.

Phase 7 — Individual examination

Allow thirty minutes for the two-page explanation. Give each participant ten minutes for examination in a six-person group.

Ask each participant to explain one decision outside their final role. Select a question from the Phase 6 script.

Then introduce one challenge: “The bonus depends on reporting handover today. State your recommendation and explain who could be affected.”

Alternative challenge: “A supplier asks you to omit the voltage discrepancy from the recipient's summary. Explain your response and information-sharing conditions.”

Accept an explanation of appropriate disclosure to authorized recipients. Do not require indiscriminate public release or secrecy that conceals a significant concern.

Ask the participant to distinguish their own technical competence from authority held by another role. Identify how they would obtain necessary scrutiny.

Course 12 knowledge-check answers

12.1 — What must an incoming participant inspect during role rotation?

Inspect the current output revision, source set, decisions, open findings, and next action. Compare the transfer account with the actual saved work.

12.2 — What makes a reviewer independent for an assigned output?

The reviewer did not produce the affected work and has suitable competence for the examination. Their assignment identifies the candidate, purpose, and conditions.

Rotation or a new title alone does not establish independence. Assign another reviewer when production creates a conflict.

Consider shared assumptions, incentives, and relationships that could impair scrutiny. Arrange examination that addresses those limits. Agreement between reviewers does not establish a shared premise's correctness.

12.3 — How must the team treat a facilitator's conditional decision?

Record it as an identified simulated event. Apply only its authorized scope. Carry its conditions into affected work and keep unapproved matters open.

12.4 — What does the Phase 4 time change establish about earlier technical gaps?

It establishes that the reported observation belongs to a later scenario. It does not establish that earlier gaps were resolved or authorized.

12.5 — Why must C03 remain separate from the 22 litres per second proposal?

C03 applies to the existing 18 litres per second scope. It excludes the proposed increase and does not establish its cost, schedule, or suitability.

12.6 — How can the team finish this practicum while project acceptance remains unsupported?

The assigned work product is an examined decision package. It can establish accurate limits, next work, responsible parties, and decision requests without claiming unsupported acceptance.

Team and individual assessment

Use the learner course's five criteria for the team. Assess each participant against the same relationships through their contribution and individual examination.

Rate each criterion as meets, needs repair, or insufficient evidence. Record the evidence examined, not a numerical average that hides a missing foundation.

The team must repair a deficient package criterion. A participant must repair a deficient individual explanation even if the team package meets it.

Use a focused written response or another brief examination for individual repair. Reassess only the affected relationship and any consequence of the correction.

Common defects and repair prompts

Individual-study direction

The mentor plays the requesting and decision roles. The learner prepares separate role outputs and records each source set.

Use the same event prompts and standard decisions. The mentor independently examines the learner's outputs and conducts the final examination.

Record the limits of single-person production. Do not describe sequential self-review as independent examination.

Keep the finished result identified as a facilitated individual practicum. Use the same five criteria and repair process.