One programme, different expectations
Teams are assessing different populations; the provider has priced only one.
Explore this situationThe IAE Decision Room
What would change
your decision?
A programme needs a clear scope. An evidence plan needs an agreed purpose. A provider transition needs accepted responsibilities. Explore three fictional industry situations and see how a different assumption changes the next step.
Illustrative industry scenario. Fictional example created to explain a decision; not a client case study.
A dataset looking for a question
The collection plan mixes a descriptive purpose and a comparative question.
Explore this situationReady to hand over; ready to receive?
A pack and staff are available; the basis for acceptance needs agreement.
Explore this situationOne programme, different expectations
Illustrative industry scenario. Fictional example created to explain a decision; not a client case study.
The fictional position
A sponsor is considering continued access after a study. One team is planning around existing participants; another expects the same arrangements to cover new requests. A provider’s estimate assumes only the first group. No common scope has been agreed.
The sponsor is considering continued access after a study. The teams have not yet agreed whether the scope covers only existing participants or also new requests. The provider estimate covers the first group.
The sponsor has documented the intended population and activities. The provider estimate still needs to be reconciled against that agreed scope.
The decision
Which populations and activities should the organisation assess and plan for?
Explore the stated fictional conditions. This is not an assessment of your programme.
Choose the condition to explore.
Neither condition is selected.
Scope is still open
Compare the scope options.
Proposed next step
Produce two scope options: continuity for existing participants, and a broader proposal that also considers new requests. Set out the additional questions raised by the second option. Confirm which work is common to both and which estimates or commitments need the scope decision first. The responsible sponsor functions decide what they want assessed.
Why it changes
While scope is open, the useful output is a choice between defined proposals. Once it is agreed, the useful output is a gap assessment against one proposal. Producing a detailed plan before that choice risks pricing and assessing different programmes.
Scope has been agreed
Assess the agreed proposal.
Proposed next step
Use that documented scope to commission the relevant regulatory, clinical, safety and operational assessments. Compare the provider’s proposed activities and assumptions with it. A broader agreed population may require a different service brief; it cannot simply inherit the narrower estimate.
Why it changes
While scope is open, the useful output is a choice between defined proposals. Once it is agreed, the useful output is a gap assessment against one proposal. Producing a detailed plan before that choice risks pricing and assessing different programmes.
What remains unresolved
Scope agreement establishes what to assess. It does not establish a lawful route, clinical eligibility, supply availability or operational readiness.
A worked example to keep.
Read the complete illustrative decision brief, including the proposed next step, its limits and the point at which to revisit it.
The brief includes both conditions. It does not change with your selection.
A dataset looking for a question
Illustrative industry scenario. Fictional example created to explain a decision; not a client case study.
The fictional position
A funder is considering data collection across several services. One proposed purpose is to describe participants’ experience. Another is to assess whether one approach produces a different outcome from another. The draft plan does not distinguish them.
The commissioner wants a descriptive account of participants’ experience. The collection plan still needs a clear question, intended use and design review.
The commissioner wants to compare outcomes between approaches. The existing collection plan has not yet been assessed against that comparative purpose.
The decision
What does the commissioner need the evidence to support?
Explore the stated fictional conditions. This is not an assessment of your programme.
Choose the condition to explore.
Neither condition is selected.
Describe participants’ experience
Define the descriptive brief.
Proposed next step
Agree whose experience matters, which question the work will answer and how the account will be used. Review recruitment, practical collection, participant burden and governance. Make the limits of the account explicit before choosing what to collect.
Why it changes
A useful description does not by itself establish that one approach caused a better outcome. Changing the intended inference changes the design review, expertise and potentially the collection required.
Compare outcomes between approaches
Reopen the design review.
Proposed next step
Reopen the design before committing to the same collection plan. A methods specialist needs to examine whether differences in the people, services, timing or measurement could explain the apparent difference. The commissioner then decides whether to change the design, narrow the question or commission further feasibility work.
Why it changes
A useful description does not by itself establish that one approach caused a better outcome. Changing the intended inference changes the design review, expertise and potentially the collection required.
What remains unresolved
No dataset has been analysed and no finding is claimed. Feasibility, governance and the appropriate methods still require assessment. People contributing their experience should be able to understand the purpose and what participation involves.
A worked example to keep.
Read the complete illustrative decision brief, including the proposed next step, its limits and the point at which to revisit it.
The brief includes both conditions. It does not change with your selection.
Ready to hand over; ready to receive?
Illustrative industry scenario. Fictional example created to explain a decision; not a client case study.
The fictional position
A provider has prepared a transition pack and proposed a handover date. The receiving organisation has staff available. There are unresolved queries and continuing responsibilities that need to be allocated.
The provider has prepared a pack and the receiving organisation has staff available. Acceptance criteria or the authority to accept remain unclear.
The teams have agreed the acceptance criteria and receiving authority. The pack, open queries and remaining responsibilities still need to be reviewed against that basis.
The decision
What evidence is needed before the receiving organisation accepts the defined responsibilities?
Explore the stated fictional conditions. This is not an assessment of your programme.
Choose the condition to explore.
Neither condition is selected.
Criteria or authority are unclear
Agree the acceptance basis.
Proposed next step
Agree what is transferring, who is authorised to accept it and which evidence they need. Allocate interim ownership of open items. The teams can organise the pack and reconcile queries while those decisions are made; readiness cannot be inferred from the proposed date alone.
Why it changes
Without agreed criteria, the next task is to define acceptance. With them, the receiving organisation can assess evidence and make a recorded decision within its authority.
Criteria and authority are agreed
Review the evidence and record the decision.
Proposed next step
Review the pack against them. Record the scope accepted, any conditions the authorised parties agree, and items that remain with another owner. If a material criterion is unmet, record the gap and the decision needed rather than treating a complete folder as acceptance.
Why it changes
Without agreed criteria, the next task is to define acceptance. With them, the receiving organisation can assess evidence and make a recorded decision within its authority.
What remains unresolved
Staffing and a document pack do not establish an accepted transfer. This example concerns planning and accountability; it authorises no regulated activity and promises no continuity outcome.
A worked example to keep.
Read the complete illustrative decision brief, including the proposed next step, its limits and the point at which to revisit it.
The brief includes both conditions. It does not change with your selection.
Access in the Open
A good plan needs a shared understanding.
Read the opening editorial on programme scope, evidence purpose and the responsibilities that continue after a handover.
Read the opening editorialDownload all three briefs (PDF)