Case kit 5: the pipeline nobody will fund

Leans: IC track · Laws in tension: Buy-In, Timing, Priorities · Camps: bring it to the skip-level now vs build the evidence for a quarter

Read the full case text from `case-bank.md`, case 5, out loud at the case slot (about 5 minutes).

To run this case: replace the four case slides in `slides/week-5-case-clinic.md` (the brief, the laws in tension, the both-tracks bridge, and the prepare-your-camp activity) with the slide block below, re-render the deck, and rename the case frame on the activity board with the labels below. The decision sheet in `worksheets.md` works unchanged for every case.

Slide block (Marp)

The slides for this case, on brand and ready to present. Click the deck, then use the arrow keys. Open full screen.

## Case: the pipeline nobody will fund
    A failing CI and deploy pipeline costs the team more per quarter than fixing it would. The roadmap has said "next quarter" twice.
    
    Her manager agrees privately and will not fight publicly. A skip-level with the head of engineering is in two weeks.
    
    You will now hear the full case, one page, 5 minutes. Listen for what has already been tried.
    
    ---
    
    ## Case: the laws in tension
    - Buy-In: the proposal was heard twice; the person was never bought
    - Timing: last month's outage is still in recent memory, and memory fades
    - Priorities: three-day releases are quietly eating the roadmap that outranks them
    
    Three laws, and they do not point to the same move.
    
    ---
    
    ## One pitch, both tracks
    Whether you lead a team of reports or lead technical direction without reports, you have watched a correct proposal die.
    
    The IC's dead pipeline proposal and the EM's dead headcount ask die the same death: idea heard, person not accepted.
    
    And timing is half of every pitch.
    
    ---
    
    <!-- _class: activity -->
    ## Activity: prepare your camp
    Assigned camps, 10 minutes. One camp argues: bring it to the skip-level now, while the outage is fresh. The other argues: spend a quarter turning pain into money and pre-wiring the leads, then walk in with allies.
    
    Build your opening and your best evidence from the case text.
    
    Challenge: what is the other camp's strongest attack on you?

Board frame labels

• Frame title: Case: the pipeline nobody will fund
• Camp A zone: Skip-level camp. Sub: bring it to the head of engineering now, while the outage is fresh. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Camp B zone: Evidence camp. Sub: build the numbers for a quarter, pre-wire the leads, pitch with allies. Post your opening and your best evidence, one sticky each.
• Decision zone question: Would your manager respect your move if they read your 3 lines?

Facilitator notes

What has already been tried: a one-page proposal with numbers, praised and deferred in two consecutive plannings; a manager who raised it once and gave up; and a six-hour outage whose attention lasted three days.

Cross-examination questions:

• Skip-level camp: the head of engineering says "interesting, talk to your manager." You spent your shot and your manager heard about it. Now what?
• Skip-level camp: what exactly do you say in the first two sentences? Give me the SCQA, not the story.
• Evidence camp: a second outage lands in week six of your patient quarter, with your name on the postmortem. Was patience the right risk?
• Evidence camp: the numbers were already in the proposal that died twice. Why does more evidence change a decision that was not made on evidence?

Debrief: expect the room to relitigate nemawashi from week 3. The sharp question: is the skip-level a shortcut around buy-in, or the only honest audience left? Both readings live in the case text.

← Case bank Facilitator guide