Starter Scenarios
Use these only if you don't have a real decision from your own area. Your own work will always produce more useful outputs.
A
Reading Programme Format Effectiveness
Reading Champion
NLB runs 15+ reading programme formats across branches (book clubs, author talks, read-aloud sessions, guided reading circles, digital reading challenges). Attendance varies widely, but no one knows which formats actually change reading behaviour vs. which simply attract people who already read. With FY26 budget decisions approaching, the division needs to decide whether to consolidate around high-impact formats or continue funding all of them. The data challenge: programme attendance is tracked, but borrowing behaviour before and after participation is not linked.
Good for: All modules. Works as a complete thread from blind spot through to action plan. Strong urgency connection to FY26 workplan.
B
Digital vs. Physical Channel Migration
Content Discovery
Digital visitorship has grown to 62.6 million, but it's measured by page loads rather than unique users. Physical visitorship sits at 22.5 million. Leadership wants to know whether digital growth represents new patrons discovering NLB, or existing members simply migrating channels. The answer determines whether to invest further in digital content discovery or focus on retaining physical visitors. The data challenge: digital visitorship is tracked by page loads, not unique users, making it impossible to determine whether growth is real reach expansion or inflated by repeat sessions from existing patrons.
Good for: Modules 1–3 especially. Strong translation practice (technical metrics → business implications). Good value category exercise (Strategic Optionality vs. Risk Reduction).
C
Community Programme Reach for Underserved Segments
Community Connection
NLB's strategic plan commits to the "Equaliser" role, ensuring services reach underserved adults and seniors, not just families and students who are already engaged. Community Connection programmes run at 30+ branches, but registration doesn't capture patron demographics. The division cannot demonstrate which programmes reach underserved segments and which serve already-engaged patrons. With FY26 workplan presentations in March, the division needs to justify community programme investment to leadership. The data challenge: no demographic data at the programme level means no way to prove equitable reach.
Good for: Modules 1, 3, and 4. Strong escalation scenario (system change needed). Good justification pitch practice. Involves policy and technical constraints.
D
Active Member Retention Decline
Reach & Engagement KPIs
Active Member Retention Rate sits at 73.6% against a target of 75%. The gap looks small, but it represents thousands of members who engaged last year but haven't returned. No one knows why they lapsed, whether it's a service issue, a life-stage change, a channel problem, or simply that they found what they needed. Re-engagement campaigns are being discussed, but without understanding the reason for lapse, interventions may target the wrong people with the wrong message. The data challenge: lapsed members are identifiable, but the reason for lapsing is not captured anywhere.
Good for: Modules 2 and 5. Strong Decision Brief exercise (multiple options for re-engagement). Good for defining success measures and the Report Evaluation Checklist.
E
Gen AI Content Accuracy Monitoring
Risk & Governance
NLB is rolling out Gen AI tools for content creation, summarisation, and patron interaction. Early results show productivity gains, but there's no systematic process for monitoring output accuracy. A single high-profile error in reading recommendations or heritage content could damage NLB's reputation as a trusted information institution. The risk team wants to implement quality monitoring, but doesn't know what "acceptable accuracy" looks like or how to measure it at scale. The data challenge: no baseline exists for content accuracy, no monitoring process is defined, and no one owns quality assurance for AI-generated outputs.
Good for: Modules 1 and 3. Strong risk framing for justification pitch. Good Five Dimensions exercise (ownership and process gaps are primary). Timely and likely to generate discussion.
Module 1 — Where Are We Flying Blind?
Activity 1.1
Personal Blind Spot Identification
15 min
Prompt: Identify a decision in your area related to Reading Champion, Singapore Memory, Content Discovery, or Community Connection that currently relies on assumptions rather than evidence.
What decision relies on assumptions? What information is missing?
Table Discussion
Share your blind spots with your table. Are there patterns? Do they cluster around a particular Core or Enabler?
Activity 1.2
Blind Spot Documentation
10 min
Select one blind spot from Activity 1.1 and document it formally using the template below. Reference the worked example (reading program scenario) for the level of specificity expected.
What information is missing?
Which decision is affected?
Why does it matter?
What risks result?
Module 1 submitted
Module 2 — What Decision Are We Making?
Activity 2.1
Topic vs. Question Exercise
15 min
Instructions: Transform each vague statement into a clear decision-question, one that names a specific action, implies who decides, and points toward what data would be needed. Work with your table group. You don't need to complete all 8, focus on quality over quantity.
Self-Check
For each question you wrote, test: Does it name a specific action? Does it imply who decides? Does it point toward what data is needed? If not, revise.
Activity 2.2
Decision Brief Practice
25 min
Select a real upcoming decision from your area, ideally the blind spot you documented in Activity 1.2, and complete the Decision Brief below. Include at least three options (not just yes/no) and ensure your success criteria are measurable. Your partner will review this using the critique questions after.
1. Decision
2. Why Now
3. Options
4. Success Criteria
5. Key Questions
Partner Review
Exchange with a partner. Ask: Is the decision specific enough? Does "Why Now" create genuine urgency? Are there at least three options? Would you know whether it succeeded? Do the key questions help choose between options?
Activity 2.3
Data Requirements Definition
20 min
Using your Decision Brief from Activity 2.2, apply the Factors → Signals → Data framework to identify what data you actually need. Then classify each data element as must-have, should-have, or could-have. Write all requirements in plain language, readable by both your manager and an IT team member.
Business Question
Factors
Signals
Data Elements
Must-Have
Should-Have
Could-Have
Plain Language Check
Review your data elements: Could your manager understand them? Could IT deliver based on this description? If either answer is no, rewrite.
Module 2 submitted
Module 3 — Why Should Leadership Fund This?
Activity 3.1
Value Category Sorting + Justification Pitch
30 min
Part A — Value Category Sorting (10 min): Classify each NLB data initiative into its primary value category: Risk Reduction, Capacity Release, Service Improvement, or Strategic Optionality. Some items are debatable, be prepared to defend your choice.
Discussion
For the debatable items, could you pitch the same initiative under a different category depending on your audience? How you frame it determines how leadership hears it.
Part B — Justification Pitch (30 min): Select one data need from your Module 2 work (Decision Brief or Data Requirements) and build a justification pitch using the structure below. Then practice delivering it in 2 minutes to your partner.
Problem
Urgency
Expected Improvement
Investment Required
Partner Feedback
After practising your 2-minute pitch, ask your partner: Did I lead with a problem, not a tool? Was urgency credible? Was the improvement specific? Was the investment realistic? Would you fund this?
Activity 3.2
Translation Practice
15 min
Part A — Technical → Business (7 min): Translate each technical statement into a business impact statement that a senior leader would understand. The goal is not simpler words, it is stating the implication for decisions.
Part B — Business → Technical (7 min): Translate each business statement into a precise technical specification that an IT or data team could act on. Add specificity on: what data elements, at what level of detail, over what time period, and how often updated.
Key Takeaway
The ability to translate in both directions is what separates a data leader from a data user. Data leaders bridge the gap, they don't just sit on one side of it.
Module 3 submitted
Module 4 — What Would Make This a Yes?
Activity 4.1
Root Cause Diagnosis Practice
15 min
Instructions: For each refusal scenario, identify: (1) the type of constraint (capacity, policy, technical, or value/credibility), (2) the right follow-up question to ask, and (3) a potential alternative you could propose.
What type of constraint? What would you ask? What alternative could you propose?
What type of constraint? What would you ask? What alternative could you propose?
What type of constraint? What would you ask? What alternative could you propose?
This one is different from the others. What type of constraint is it really? How would you respond?
Discussion
Scenario 4 is not a resource, policy, or technical constraint, it's a trust and credibility issue. Previous data work went unused, so there's scepticism. The response must connect the request to a specific current decision and pre-commit to using the results. How does this connect to what you learned in Module 2?
Activity 4.2
"Making It a Yes" Role Play
20 min
Instructions: Work in pairs. One person plays the requester, the other plays the refusing party. Practice using "What would need to be true for this to be a yes?" to shift the conversation from refusal to conditions. Then switch roles for Scenario 2. Record your key takeaways below.
Scenario 1
A data steward needs patron visit duration data to evaluate Community Connection outcomes, but IT says the door counter system only captures entry counts, not exits.
Target approach: "What would make it a yes?" → Pilot with manual observation at two branches for four weeks.
Scenario 2
A data leader wants to link Content Discovery Platform usage to borrowing records to measure reading promotion impact, but the data privacy team flags patron profiling concerns.
Target approach: Propose anonymised, aggregate-level analysis as an alternative.
Remember
The goal is not to win the argument. The goal is to find a path forward that works for both parties.
Activity 4.3
Escalation Email Writing
15 min
Instructions: Write a constructive escalation message using the template below. You may use the provided scenario or substitute your own real situation from earlier modules. Focus on decisions and impacts, not individuals or complaints. Your partner will review the tone and completeness.
Provided Scenario
Escalating the inability to measure whether reading programs change reading behavior (the core shift from "learning activities" to "reading outcomes"), which means leadership cannot assess progress against the Reading Champion core.
1. The decision that cannot be made
2. The data required
3. The constraint encountered
4. The potential consequences
5. Alternatives already considered
Peer Review
Exchange with your partner and assess: Is the tone professional and decision-focused? Are consequences tied to strategic priorities (not frustration)? Does it show alternatives have been explored? Would a senior leader understand the issue and know what action to take?
Module 4 submitted
Module 5 — What Will We Do Differently?
Activity 5.1
Opportunity Selection
10 min
Instructions: Review your work from today: blind spot documentation, Decision Brief, data requirements, justification pitch, escalation message, and select ONE improvement to implement in 30 days. Your opportunity should be: connected to a real decision, achievable in 30 days, high value to your area, and within your sphere of influence.
Not sure where to start? Consider this quick win:
Before your division's FY26 workplan presentation, or the next time your division presents metrics to leadership , apply the Dashboard Challenge Questions and Report Evaluation Checklist to every metric you plan to present. Remove or strengthen any metric you cannot justify.
Describe the one thing you will do in the next 30 days.
Why did you choose this over other options? What makes it high-value and achievable?
Partner Validation
Share your selection with a partner. Ask them: Is this actually achievable in 30 days? Is it connected to a real decision? Can you start this week?
Activity 5.2
30-Day Action Plan
10 min
Instructions: Complete the 30-Day Action Plan for your selected opportunity from Activity 5.1. Be specific, vague plans don't get executed. Your first step should be something you can do this week.
1. Decision this supports
2. What you will obtain or eliminate
3. First three steps
4. How you will measure success
5. Anticipated barriers
6. Accountability partner
Before You Leave Today
What will you do differently when your division next presents data to leadership? If your division has an FY26 workplan presentation coming up, start there.
Accountability Commitment
Exchange contact details with your accountability partner. Their job is simple: check in at the agreed date and ask "Did you do it?" That single question doubles follow-through.
Module 5 submitted
Submit All Activities
Use this to submit any modules you haven't submitted yet, or to resubmit everything at end of day.
In collaboration with
