The final steering committee. The engagement manager presents the recommendation in one sentence, then defends the numbers, including the smaller first-year figure. The partner speaks about the money and the board. The sceptical manager states his condition in the room, as agreed, and the sponsor approves the recommendation with conditions.
Good morning. One hour, one item, one decision. Joanna has the minutes. And as always, bad news first, please.
There isn't any that you haven't heard already. That was the point of this week. Everyone in this room has seen the recommendation, and nobody should hear anything for the first time today.
Good. Then give me the sentence.
Two centres instead of three, and a way of working where customers call once, not three times. Leeds and Glasgow stay. Bristol closes over twelve months. And the Glasgow method, where the first agent keeps the case, goes to Leeds. The saving is about two point two million a year.
Owen doesn't build up to the recommendation. He gives the answer in the first minute, in a sentence Philip can repeat, and then the three facts behind it. In a decision meeting, the details only make sense once people know where they're going.
That's shorter than the version in the pack.
It's the version for your board. The pack is the version for your finance director.
He'll read the pack twice. Owen, the questions he'll ask first: why twelve months, and why Glasgow and not Bristol?
Glasgow, because it's the only place where the method already works. Eight per cent of customers call back there, against twenty-two in Leeds. You can't teach a method from a centre you've just closed. Twelve months, because the draft said six, and Javier showed us why that was wrong.
Javier?
The best people in Bristol trained many of the people in Leeds. Six months, and they leave before they've taught anyone. Twelve, and four of them teach the Glasgow method in Leeds.
We met them yesterday. Three said yes. The fourth wants a week to think, and I'd rather she took it.
Owen says openly that the twelve months came from Javier, and Philip immediately asks Javier to explain it. A change is more convincing when the person who asked for it defends it, especially when that person was the sceptic.
Now the number. My board heard four million for a year. Now you're telling me two point two. What will they actually see next year?
Less than two point two, and I want to be clear about that. About a third of the saving is Bristol's building. The rest depends on Leeds learning the method. Meera built the Leeds numbers. Meera?
In Glasgow, the method grew over five years, one team at a time. We're not asking Leeds to learn it alone. The plan starts with four teams in month three, one for each Bristol team leader. The rest of Leeds follows team by team during the first year.
And the repeat calls?
In the first year, we expect Leeds to go from twenty-two per cent to about fifteen. That's halfway to Glasgow, and it gives about one point eight. Two point two needs Leeds close to twelve, and that's a second-year number.
How sure are you of the fifteen?
Less sure than I am of the eight. The eight is measured; the fifteen is a forecast. But it's not a guess. The first team in Glasgow got there in about a year, with no one to teach it. Leeds will have four people who've already done it.
That's why I said it's the part I'm least sure of. If it's slower, you'll know early.
So the first year is one point eight.
A little less. Take away the three hundred thousand for the longer Bristol transition, and the first year is about one and a half. Two point two from the second year, if Leeds keeps learning.
Judith could have stopped at "two point two a year". Instead she gives the first-year figure, which is smaller, before anyone asks. A sponsor who finds the smaller number on his own stops trusting the bigger one. A sponsor who hears it from you can defend both.
One and a half, after I told them four.
Yes. And here's how I'd put it to them. The four was an estimate made before anyone had looked at the customers. One and a half is year one, two point two is what it becomes, and every number is built from Norvane's own data. Your board will see the difference.
And you'll say that in front of them?
Next Thursday, with Owen. As I promised, with the final answer, not a draft. And one more number while we're on money. The change request was up to fifty-eight thousand four hundred. The final figure is fifty-one thousand two hundred. The invoice will say exactly that.
A consultant charging less than the maximum. I'll write that down too.
Only when the work costs less. Don't get used to it.
Javier. You've run these centres for six years. Where are you on this?
I'll be honest, as I was on Monday. I don't think closing Bristol is a good idea, and I won't pretend that I do. But I won't fight the recommendation. The data on Glasgow is real, and the Bristol plan is much better than it was.
But.
But I have one condition. Nothing is announced until the Bristol plan has names, dates, and the role for the team leaders. And the agents hear it from us first. Not from a rumour, and not from the canteen.
Can I add something to that? Last year there was a rumour that Glasgow would close. We lost six good people in a month, before anything was decided. If Bristol hears this second-hand, we lose the people the plan depends on.
Javier doesn't block the decision; he puts a condition on it. Because Owen heard it on Monday, nobody is surprised, and Joanna can support it with a real example. An objection in the room stops a meeting. A condition that everyone expected moves it forward.
Owen, can the plan meet that?
Yes. It's already built that way. The plan starts with the choice for each person in Bristol, not with the closure. And I'd like the minutes to say that the Bristol transition was designed with Javier.
Not yet. It's not finished. Ask me again in a year.
Joanna, write that down exactly as he said it.
I already have.
One more thing for the minutes, Philip. The Glasgow figure, the eight per cent, exists because Joanna asked her old team to measure it properly. And she was careful not to push it. Without that, we'd be recommending Leeds.
The Glasgow teams did the work. I only asked the question.
Asking the right question is most of my job, Joanna. Noted. Now let me ask my three questions. Owen, what do you need from me today, what does it cost, and what happens if I say no?
Today, a decision on the direction: two centres, the Glasgow method in Leeds, and a twelve-month transition for Bristol. It costs three hundred thousand more in the first year than a fast closure. If you say no, you keep three centres, and customers keep calling three times.
And implementation? The pack has a roadmap.
The roadmap shows how it could be done. Implementation is a separate decision, and not one I'm asking for today.
Owen separates what he needs today from what comes later. A sponsor who is asked to decide everything at once usually decides nothing. "Not one I'm asking for today" keeps the meeting on the decision that is ready.
Good. Then here's my decision. I approve the recommendation, with two conditions. First, Javier's, as he said it: nothing is announced until the Bristol plan has names, dates and roles, and the agents hear it from us first.
Thank you.
Second, I want the Leeds repeat-call figure every month, from month three. If Leeds isn't below eighteen per cent after six months, I want to hear it that day, not in a report.
The monthly figure is already in the plan. I can add the eighteen per cent as a checkpoint.
Please do. Joanna, can you read the decision back?
The recommendation is approved: Leeds and Glasgow stay, Bristol closes over twelve months, and the Glasgow method is introduced in Leeds. Two conditions. Nothing is announced before the Bristol plan has names, dates and roles, and the agents hear it first. And the Leeds repeat-call figure goes to Philip every month, with a checkpoint at eighteen per cent after six months.
Philip asks Joanna to read the decision back before the meeting ends. Everyone hears the same words, and any disagreement comes out now, not in an email next week. The minutes are agreed in the room.
One practical question, Philip. Who tells Bristol, and when?
You and Joanna, with me in the room. The same way you wrote the note after the first committee: team leaders first, then the agents, and nobody hears it second-hand. But not until the plan has names and dates. That's your condition, and I'm keeping it.
Then we'll draft it together and send it to you first, as before.
That's the decision. Before we close, one thing I want to say. From the start, I asked for bad news first. You gave me a smaller number, a delay, and a head of operations who disagreed with you. All of it early.
I still disagree, for the record.
I know. That's why I believe the rest of it. A recommendation that nobody argued with, I wouldn't trust.
Thank you, Philip. We'll see you on Thursday, with the board.
Owen, the sentence you gave me this morning. Send it to me in writing. That's the one my board will hear first.
I'll send it today, with the first-year number right under it.
The meeting ends with the decision read back, the next date agreed, and the key sentence put in writing. Owen adds the first-year number himself, so the short version never travels without the honest one.