Which two programme reviews can fit?
Compare review readiness, analyst time and budget.
The question
The sponsor has USD 18,000 and 12 analyst-days to prepare programme reviews this fortnight. The scientific owners expect all three reviews to clear on time. Prepare as many as possible. Give priority to a feasible pair that includes A, which has the earliest committee date.
| A | B | C | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst-days | 7 | 5 | 6 |
| Cost in USD | 9500 | 7500 | 6000 |
Costs and days add across programmes. Each review needs confirmation from its designated scientific owner.
“Which work would you prepare now, and how would you explain the trade-off?”
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Name the constraints
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Check cost, time and the owner’s review for each option.
The strong move. A pair must fit both limits and meet its required review condition.
Select the two least expensive programmes immediately.
Tempting, but it misses something. The sponsor also needs two feasible reviews and gives priority to the earlier A review if it can fit.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d check the USD 18,000 budget, the 12 analyst-days and whether the scientific owner can complete each required review in time.”
Why it works: A pair must fit both limits and meet its required review condition.
Step 2: Compare the pairs
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Choose A and B under the sponsor’s stated priority.
The strong move. A and C fit the budget but exceed the analyst time. Both other pairs fit.
Choose A and C because they fit the budget.
Tempting, but it misses something. Together they need 13 days. The sponsor has 12.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A and B take 12 days and USD 17,000. A and C take 13 days. B and C take 11 days and USD 13,500. I’d start with A and B because that pair fits and includes the earlier review.”
Why it works: A and C fit the budget but exceed the analyst time. Both other pairs fit.
Step 3: Update the plan
A’s designated scientific owner confirms the required review cannot finish this fortnight. The owners for B and C confirm those reviews can still proceed this cycle.
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Prepare B and C and give the committee the unused capacity.
The strong move. The only pair that fits the updated review condition is B and C.
Keep A and B because their cost and time still fit.
Tempting, but it misses something. A’s required scientific review now falls outside this fortnight.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d prepare B and C. They use 11 days and USD 13,500. That leaves one analyst-day and USD 4,500. A needs a later review slot.”
Why it works: The only pair that fits the updated review condition is B and C.
Step 4: Give the recommendation
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Recommend the two preparations and ask for A’s next confirmed date.
The strong move. The sponsor can act on the preparation plan while the committee retains the advancement decision.
Tell the committee to stop programme A.
Tempting, but it misses something. A timing constraint changes this preparation window. The case gives no evidence for an advancement decision.
See how a strong candidate says it
“I’d tell the committee what can fit now and ask A’s scientific owner for the next confirmed review date. The committee owns any decision to advance a programme.”
Why it works: The sponsor can act on the preparation plan while the committee retains the advancement decision.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Prepare B and C in this review window.
- Because
- They fit both limits after A’s required review moves outside the window.
- What would change it
- A confirmed scientific review in a later cycle would let the committee revisit the preparation plan.
Common traps
- Checking budget without checking analyst time.
- Treating review timing as a programme advancement decision.
Check your answer
- I stated both limits.
- I compared all pairs.
- I used the changed review status.
- I named the decision owner.
Last reviewed Nov 11, 2026