An agenda timed to the minute, criteria agreed before options and a decision rule announced in advance make up the MT340 Unit 9 facilitation plan for one studio's scope-cut meeting. Searches like "mt 340 unit 9 assignment example", "mt340 unit 9 sample" and "mt340 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished MT340 Unit 9 facilitation plan looks like
Four pages: a one-page agenda with times, then three pages of rationale. The agenda runs ninety minutes in seven blocks. Criteria come first, agreed before any option is named: player-facing loss, crash risk, days saved and narrative dependency. Each lead then presents a one-page case circulated 48 hours ahead, with clarifying questions only. A restating round follows in which each lead summarizes another lead's case until its owner accepts the summary. Options are drafted silently on cards before discussion, then scored against the criteria. The rationale explains the choice of facilitator, the studio's operations manager, since the producer owns the schedule and is a party. It also records the decision rule, a consultative call by the creative director before the meeting ends, and a parking lot for anything personal.
How a MT340 Unit 9 example is structured
The plan is ordered by the meeting's clock, and each block's rationale sits beside it rather than in a separate essay. Sam Kaner's diamond of participatory decision-making explains the sequence of divergence, the uncomfortable middle he calls the groan zone, and convergence, and the plan budgets time for the middle instead of hoping to skip it. Roger Schwarz's ground rules, especially testing assumptions and sharing all relevant information, justify the pre-circulated cases and the restating round. Criteria before options follows Fisher and Ury on objective standards. The opening is scripted: the facilitator states the hardest claim first, that 23 of the 61 crash bugs trace to the water-physics puzzle, as data rather than accusation. A contingency section covers two failures, a lead who will not restate and a meeting running long, and a follow-up message closes the plan.
A facilitator with no stake
The producer owns the schedule, so she attends as a party. The operations manager facilitates because she manages no one in the room and has no preference about which content survives.
Criteria before options
Four criteria are agreed in the first ten minutes and written where everyone can see them. Agreeing them before any cut is named keeps each lead from choosing standards that happen to favor their own proposal.
The restating round
Each lead summarizes another's case until its owner says the summary is fair. The round costs fifteen minutes, and the plan argues it is the cheapest protection against a task dispute turning personal.
Scripted first words
The facilitator opens with the bug figures and their source, stated plainly. Naming the hardest fact first, the plan argues, prevents it from surfacing late as an accusation from engineering.
Decision rule and parking lot
The creative director will decide before the meeting closes, after hearing every case. Anything about personal conduct goes to a parking lot, with a named person and date for raising it privately.
When the plan fails
If a lead refuses to restate, the facilitator restates for them and asks for correction. If time runs out, scoring is finished by message within a day, and the decision date holds.
Where marks go in MT340 Unit 9
An agenda offered with no reasoning behind its order earns little in MT340, where this unit ordinarily assesses design judgment rather than scheduling. A plan that leaves the decision rule unstated invites the argument to resume after the meeting, and readers treat that as the most consequential omission. Choosing a facilitator who holds a stake in the outcome undermines the plan's neutrality before it starts. Credit tends to follow plans grounded in a facilitation model applied block by block, and plans that script the opening of the difficult item rather than scheduling a difficult conversation and trusting someone to begin it. The closing follow-up, stating the decision and its reasons in writing, is a small element that is noticed when missing.
Get a MT340 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Outline the meeting you need to plan: who attends, what they disagree about, who has authority to decide and how long the room is booked. Attach the Unit 9 prompt and its rubric. A custom facilitation plan with a timed agenda and a stated decision rule reaches you in 24-48h, and the first one is free.
MT340 Unit 9 questions, answered
Which facilitation model fits the Unit 9 plan?
Sections vary, and some leave the choice open. Kaner's diamond of participatory decision-making and Schwarz's skilled facilitator approach are common because both explain why a meeting is sequenced as it is. Nominal group technique suits plans that must gather ideas quietly first. The model matters less than applying it to each block of the agenda.
Should the manager facilitate their own team's meeting?
Often not, when the manager holds a view on the outcome. A plan can name a neutral facilitator from elsewhere in the organization, or have the manager facilitate while declaring the decision rule openly. Either choice should be explained, since readers check whether the person running the meeting also stands to win or lose by it.
How detailed should the agenda be?
Timed blocks with a purpose for each are standard. Minute-by-minute scripts are unusual, except for the opening of the most difficult item, where exact wording can matter. A rationale beside each block, explaining its placement and duration, is where the plan shows understanding rather than scheduling skill.