Cycle two, the in-depth review, and refining for the future

Cycle two

• The second cycle is carried out with reference to the refined plan — the plan as it stands after the first review, not the original.
• Record exactly as you did in cycle one, and record the refinements specifically: for each change you made, capture the evidence that shows whether it worked.
• Keep everything else as stable as you can. The fewer unplanned differences between the cycles, the more confidently you can attribute the results to your refinements.

The in-depth review

• The standard defines review in depth as comparing the outcome of the second cycle with the business plan made after the review of the first cycle.
• This is the sentence that catches groups out. Cycle two is not reviewed against the original plan; it is reviewed against the refined one.

Structure it around the refinements:

Refinement made	Expected effect	Actual result	Did it work?	Why
Split production 35/10/35 across sessions	Sell ~75 of 80	Sold 74; none turned away	Yes	Supply matched the pattern of demand; Wednesday still slow but only 10 units at risk
Pre-orders taken for Thursday	Reduce unsold stock to zero	32 of 35 pre-ordered	Mostly	Pre-orders worked where the coordinator promoted them; walk-up sales unaffected
Second person trained on the till	No delays when someone absent	One absence in week 2, no delay	Yes	Cover was used exactly as planned
Price held at $5.00	Maintain access	No complaints; attendance up 6	Yes	Priority applied as stated in the plan

• A refinement that did not work is not a failure to hide. It is evidence, and explaining why it did not work is worth more than another success you cannot account for.
• Review the community well-being outcome with the same structure: what did you expect the change to do for the community, and what actually happened?

Comparing the two cycles

• Set the two cycles side by side on the measures that matter: units sold, unit cost, surplus, community outcome, and the disruptions that occurred.
• Then answer the question the comparison exists to answer: did the refinements improve the activity, and how do you know?
• Be careful about attribution. If cycle two ran in a different week, in better weather, with a coordinator who promoted it more heavily, say so — a group that acknowledges a confounding factor is showing better judgement than one that claims full credit.

Refining the plan for the future — the Excellence step

• The Excellence criterion requires refining the business plan for the future, on top of everything already done. This is the step most groups omit, because the activity has finished and it feels like the work is over.
• It is a forward-looking refinement: what should be changed if the activity were run again by another group, or continued next year?

What belongs in it:

• The changes you identified but did not test, with the reason they were deferred.
• What the second cycle revealed that neither cycle acted on — a product the customers kept asking for, a session that should be dropped, a supplier who should be replaced.
• Structural changes that were beyond a two-cycle activity: a different site, a different customer group, a partnership with another organisation, a change of scale.
• What you would tell the next group — the single most useful thing you learned, stated so that someone who was not there could act on it.
• What should not change, and why. A refinement that protects what worked is as valuable as one that fixes what did not, and it is rarer.

Each item needs the same discipline as every other refinement: evidence, change, expected effect.