The pilot shows a 12% improvement, and the sponsor expected 50%. How do you present it?
Why D is the answer
Lead with the measured result, what limited it, and the options from here
Honest results with clear options keep trust. Selective numbers fall apart at the first close look.
In detail
- Honest results with clear options keep trust.
- Selective numbers fall apart at the first close look.
- Bring a recommendation, not only the number.
Use case
An illustrative scenario, not a real incident.
A pilot delivers 12% against a hoped-for 50%. The architect shows the result, what held it back, and the options, and the sponsor funds the next phase.
See it in different ways
sequenceDiagram participant S as Sponsor participant A as Architect S->>A: A broad ask A->>S: Problem, baseline and target A->>A: Build and measure A-->>S: Result, limits and options S->>A: Named decision
flowchart LR S0["Measured result"] --> S1["What limited it"] --> S2["Options from here"]
Key point: Honest results with options keep trust.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Report only the best week of the pilot, so that the project keeps its current momentum
- One good week misrepresents the result.
- B. Choose a different metric that happens to show a larger improvement
- Changing the metric afterward hides the shortfall.
- C. Delay the report until the numbers have had more time to improve
- A delay does not improve the facts, and it costs trust.