Instructor Facilitation Guide

Purpose and Philosophy

This practicum is designed to move students from:

Understanding project management → Practicing project leadership under uncertainty

Unlike traditional instruction, this module:

• Does not present clean problems
• Does not provide complete information
• Does not reward memorization

Instead, it simulates:

• Ambiguity
• Trade-offs
• Stakeholder pressure
• Imperfect decision environments

Instructor Objective

Your goal is not to:

• Teach the “correct” answer

Your goal is to:

• Develop judgment
• Reinforce discipline
• Encourage decision ownership

Facilitator

• Guide thinking, not answers
• Ask probing questions
• Challenge assumptions

System Designer

• Adjust scenario intensity
• Introduce consequences
• Control pacing

Executive Voice

At times, you will act as:

• CFO
• CTO
• Executive Sponsor
• Stakeholder

This introduces realism and pressure.

Model A – Individual Execution

• Students respond individually
• Best for writing discipline

Model B – Team-Based Simulation

• Groups act as PM office
• Best for discussion and debate

Model C – Hybrid (Recommended)

• Discussion → Individual submission

Phase 1 – Scenario Launch (5–10 min)

Instructor:

• Provides scenario
• Reads key email (optionally aloud)
• Highlights signals, not conclusions

Do NOT interpret the scenario.

Phase 2 – Silent Analysis (10–15 min)

Students:

• Read scenario independently
• Identify:
  • Issue
  • Risk
  • Decision

Phase 3 – Structured Discussion (20–30 min)

Instructor leads using:

Core Question Framework

1. Signal Identification
   • “What is actually happening here?”
2. Pattern Recognition
   • “Is this new, or part of a trend?”
3. Decision Pressure
   • “What decision must be made now?”
4. Trade-offs
   • “What are you giving up?”
5. Risk
   • “What could go wrong next?”

Phase 4 – Decision Commitment (Critical)

Students must:

• Take a position
• Defend it

Instructor must enforce:

No vague answers
No “it depends” without conclusion

Phase 5 – Debrief (10–15 min)

Instructor:

• Highlights strong reasoning
• Compares approaches
• Emphasizes trade-offs

Technique 1 – “Push for the Second Layer”

Student:
“We should monitor.”

Instructor:
“What happens if this continues for 3 weeks?”

Technique 2 – “Force Trade-offs”

Student:
“We should improve quality.”

Instructor:
“What are you willing to delay or spend?”

Technique 3 – “Reverse the Decision”

Ask:

“What would happen if you did the opposite?”

Technique 4 – “Future Projection”

“Where will this project be in 2 scenarios?”

Technique 5 – “Decision Ownership”

“Are you comfortable explaining this decision to the CFO?”

Phase 1: Early Execution (Scenarios 1–5)

Focus:

• Scope discipline
• Early signals

Instructor Behavior:

• Push students to act early
• Challenge “it’s small” thinking

Phase 2: Pattern Formation (6–15)

Focus:

• Trends
• Corrective action

Instructor Behavior:

• Force pattern recognition

• Ask:
  “What’s repeating?”

Phase 3: Escalation & Conflict (16–24)

Focus:

• Leadership under pressure
• Trade-offs

Instructor Behavior:

• Introduce tension
• Simulate executive pressure

Phase 4: Control & Closure (25–30)

Focus:

• Alignment
• Reflection

Instructor Behavior:

• Push strategic thinking
• Challenge hindsight bias

Passive Monitoring

Symptoms:

• “Let’s wait”
• No action taken

Instructor Response:
“What signal would make you act?”

Overreaction

Symptoms:

• Immediate escalation
• Over-control

Instructor Response:
“What problem are you actually solving?”

Narrow Thinking

Symptoms:

• Focus only on defects OR cost

Instructor Response:
“What else is affected?”

Avoiding Decisions

Symptoms:

• Long analysis
• No conclusion

Instructor Response:
“Choose.”

Emotional Reaction

Symptoms:

• Blaming vendor
• Defensive tone

Instructor Response:
“What would an executive say?”

If Students Are Too Passive

Inject:

• Escalating defects
• Budget spike
• Stakeholder complaint

If Students Are Too Aggressive

Inject:

• Vendor pushback
• Relationship strain

If Students Ignore Finance

Inject:

• CFO escalation

If Students Allow Scope Drift

Inject:

• Scope reconciliation crisis

If Students Over-Control

Inject:

• Slow delivery
• Team frustration

Grade Based On:

• Decision Quality
  • Clear, actionable
• Trade-off Awareness
  • Recognizes consequences
• Risk Insight
  • Identifies future problems
• Structure
  • Organized thinking
• Tone
  • Professional, executive

Do NOT Grade Based On:

• Agreement with instructor
• Technical detail
• Length of response

Instructor Questions:

• “When did control break down?”
• “What decision mattered most?”
• “What would you change first?”

Encourage:

• Honest reflection
• Ownership
• Pattern awareness

Teaching Philosophy (Core)

Students must learn:

• Projects drift gradually
• Control must be continuous
• Decisions have second-order effects
• Trade-offs are unavoidable

Live Simulation Mode

• Instructor reads Julie’s email aloud
• Students respond in real-time

Executive Review Mode

• Students present dashboard
• Instructor plays CFO

Debate Mode

• Split class into opposing decisions
• Force defense