OPS.21:4.5 - Reconcile contributions and decide how the aim will be used

Check the consequential joins with other participants. Two teams can each claim a feasible target while relying on the same specialist window. A reception target can accelerate incomplete requests and burden technicians. Use OPS.19 for a joint demand or displaced contribution; return an unresolved direction conflict to the people responsible for that choice.

Identify who can choose the aim, assign work, provide resources, change a service promise and decide assessment consequences. These may be different people. Finance can supply an expectation without authorizing staffing. HR can advise on an assessment arrangement without controlling the jobs through which the target could be achieved. Obtain the specific decision from its actual holder; agreement in a meeting supplies only the agreements the participants can make.

Agree the intended interpretation while the grounds are available: the aim, comparison, difficulty, material assumptions, protected conditions, proposed action and reason to reconsider. Explain what an unwelcome forecast will trigger. It should expose a response decision, not silently become a lower target or an automatic adverse judgement of the reporter. If an existing consequence rule defeats that use, take the conflict and proposed change to the person who can change the rule, using OCE.10 when the arrangement needs development. Retain the honest account and the unresolved authority condition until that change is effective.

Use the ordinary working record or discussion that can carry these distinctions. No particular scorecard, software or extra annual process is required. The result may be an agreed aim, a proposal conditional on another participant’s decision, or a justified choice to monitor without a new target.