Colabmo development course A-P02

Learning objective: Defend a complete redesign and test plan while responding to new evidence.

Fictional assessed case. Complete your recommendation before reading the facilitator’s model response.

Cedar Support handles internal service requests. The sponsor asks the team to “use AI to eliminate the queue.” The team can redesign intake and routing but cannot change access permissions or authorize new service commitments. Current policy requires identity and permission verification before restricted work begins. Urgent cases need an accountable owner. No source specifies a particular form or requires all requests to share one queue.

In a sample of 50 completed requests, 20 were returned for missing information and 10 were urgent. Six requests were both returned and urgent. Median elapsed time from initial receipt to completion was six business days. Median recorded hands-on time was 45 minutes, but the logs omit some clarification conversations. Five cases were reopened after apparent completion. No data is provided on abandoned requests or uncompleted backlog.

The current flow is an email inbox, coordinator triage, manager assignment, specialist work and email closure. Three staff members say “only the manager can assign work”; no governing source has been found. A specialist reports that urgent cases sometimes lack an owner during reassignment. The sponsor wants a recommendation, not an immediate production change.

Your assignment

1. Write a bounded outcome and define success measures.
2. Separate at least eight claims by type and record missing evidence.
3. Decompose the process into necessary functions and dependencies.
4. Derive three conditional principles with supporting premises.
5. Create three materially different designs and compare them.
6. Recommend a reversible test with quality and workload guardrails.
7. Record the decision owner, outside dependencies and next review.

Use W1–W8 and W10. Work for 55 minutes, then receive the evidence update: the existing assignment guidance permits delegation to named qualified coordinators, but the current system has no automated permission-verification capability. Spend 15 minutes revising the evidence ledger and recommendation. Use 15 minutes for a peer challenge and five minutes for an individual reflection.

Your final response must explain what changed after the update. A viable design must preserve permission verification and urgent-case ownership. You may recommend human checks, a simulation, or further investigation. You do not need to recommend AI. Identify what evidence would justify its use if you include it.

Submit a concise decision packet and an individual explanation of one challenged assumption. Use the rubric in the assessment lesson. Business benefit is not required to be demonstrated in this fictional exercise; quality of reasoning is.

Practice

Produce the capstone decision packet. During peer review, ask the other team for the strongest counterargument to its recommendation. Each participant records one change they made because of evidence rather than preference.

Check your reasoning

How many sample requests were returned, urgent, or both?