Of all the things a group could discuss, what they discuss, and the sequence in which they discuss each item, defines the solution space in which their goals and plans can land. Yet agenda design has no systematic support. Most are rational and logical but inaccurate and incomplete.

The time allocation is a core constraint. It has to be distributed among different items requiring different discussion times. Different discussions contribute differently to the fit, feasibility, and alignment objectives. Pathing logic determines if item A should be before or after item B.

The Agenda Designer shows the Fit, Feasibility, and Alignment profile the minimum and maximum amount of time provides. It then identifies time investments between those two points where the extra time produces a material increase in decision quality.

When one of the time notches is selected, or a custom time, the Agenda Designer proposes the set of group conversations that if conducted successfully, will yield the optimal Fit, Feasibility, and Alignment. What-ifs can be conducted and manual overrides made.

The optimal goals and plans still require the group to execute the theoretically correct plan. Just like team sports. But with the four prescribed dialogue methods, the group can have valid confidence they are positioned to design goals plans with the optmal balance of Fit, Feasibility, and Alignment.

In less time than leaders often spend crafting custom agendas with no true understanding of the impact on design quality, they can now make granular choices of what to discuss and when with line of sight to the group's output.