Core methods | about 45 minutes | free
Build a small options table and identify what would make a joint commitment credible.
An introductory confrontation-analysis rehearsal, not a full formal classification of dilemmas or a prediction of behaviour. Consent, new options and changing preferences remain possible.
This is original learning material, not a reproduced official course. Mechanical checks have determinate answers within the stated case. Worked comparisons for open judgements show defensible reasoning, not the only possible model. Specialist pedagogical review is not recorded.
Fictional case: a council and a charity are negotiating an evening advice service. The council alone can authorise funding (F). The charity alone can commit a trained team (T). Both publicly propose F=yes and T=yes. The council says it will withhold funding if the charity does not commit. The charity says it will not commit without funding. Both prefer a funded staffed service to no service. The charity doubts that the council's promised funding will survive its next budget meeting. A council manager's personal assurance is not a budget authorisation. The charity could offer an unpaid four-week pilot, but has not offered or agreed to do so.
Use paper, your own drawing tool or the notes below. Attempt each step before opening its comparison. Describe a diagram in words when that is more accessible.
Produce: An options table with controllers clearly marked.
F is controlled by the council and T by the charity. Combinations are (yes,yes), (yes,no), (no,yes), and (no,no). Each actor's stated position is (yes,yes). Stated fallbacks under the other's refusal lead to (no,no). Do not enter the unpaid pilot as a commitment: it is only a potential new option.
Produce: Three statements drawn from the case, each correctly typed.
Preference: both prefer the staffed funded service to none. Announced intention: each makes its contribution conditional on the other. Belief: the charity doubts future council funding. These are not interchangeable. Agreement on a preferred outcome does not resolve distrust about whether the other party will perform.
Produce: One revised option and evidence that it is genuinely available.
The council could seek formal budget authorisation and offer an agreement with a staged payment before staff mobilisation. The charity could then make a bounded staffing commitment conditional on that authorisation. Verify decision rights, dates and resources. A louder promise does not change the relevant evidence; neither does pressuring volunteers into an unauthorised pilot.
Produce: A revised commitment record and one remaining uncertainty.
Replace the vague F option with 'funding formally authorised and first payment made by date X', if the council can actually do it. Make the charity's staffing obligation conditional on that observable event. Remaining uncertainty may include recruitment, payment timing or future continuation. State who can withdraw, how notice works and what happens to users if the service stops.
These checks test the supplied case, not your overall competence. Open answers and model variants still need your judgement.
The options table assigns 'charity supplies staff' to the council and treats a manager's assurance as secured funding.
Correct the option controller and distinguish authority, resources and announcements. Record the charity's doubt without asserting it is factually correct. Seek evidence and redesign commitments rather than diagnosing personalities.
The council obtains authorised funding, but the charity now doubts it can recruit enough qualified staff. What changes in the analysis?
The original funding credibility issue may be reduced, while the charity's capability to fulfil its promise becomes uncertain. Introduce a feasible staged staffing option, recruitment evidence or a revised start date. Do not continue treating every obstacle as the council's failure.
A different model can be defensible when its purpose, assumptions and reasoning are explicit. A contradiction, incorrect unit, invented fact or unacknowledged change of purpose needs repair. Keep both your first attempt and revision.
No sign-in or submission is required. Notes are not sent by this practice tool. Use fictional information, not identifiable client or learner data. Saving stores this page's attempt only in this browser; clearing browser data can remove it. Export a copy to keep it elsewhere.
The complete original case above is free. Links below distinguish exercises from explanations, recordings, software and paid study. Reading a page or drawing in a tool is not itself a model check.
Use for orientation and source discovery. It is not a free self-check workbook; use the original exercises here.
Method descriptions and linked talks/books inspected. Provider claims about success rates are not adopted by this pack.
Further reading for each framework row, including the separate references associated with transposing theory.
Public sharing confirmed; approach and theory bibliography inspected. The presence of a reference does not establish that it contains self-check exercises.
Ask for practice with feedback in the named approach, rather than assuming every recording includes assessment.
The page lists coverage including CONAN, INFORMED and multi-methodology. Availability and individual tutor feedback require an enquiry.
Follow the book link for current availability. Work through a case before comparing the authors' treatment; distinguish variants of the method.
SCiO book record and description inspected. It describes training cases and two variants. The book was not purchased or read in full; the listed historic RRP is not treated as a current price.
Choose another practice area · Task-only version · Worked-answer version