For readiness, start with the decision
A useful way to identify whether a project needs readiness is to start with the end.
Ask: "Will there be a moment when people are required to formally sanction a significant decision and stand behind it?"
If the answer is no, the project may need governance and delivery management, but it probably does not need a readiness process. To compare the two:
Typically requires readiness
A major technology migration
Retiring or switching off a critical system or service
Launching a product, service or capability to customers
Announcing organisational changes that affect people's roles, teams or ways of working
Opening, closing, relocating or consolidating facilities or functions
Executing a major operational transition where business ownership transfers from one state to another
Typically doesn’t require readiness
Incremental software enhancements released continuously
Routine process improvements
Projects that can be reversed easily if something goes wrong
Changes piloted with a small group before wider adoption
Process improvements where old and new approaches can run in parallel
Delivering organisational culture change initiatives
Not every project requires readiness management. Every project requires planning, governance and delivery management. Readiness is only needed when the project will culminate in a consequential decision that stakeholders must consciously authorise and then stand behind.
The four characteristics I look for are:
The decision has significant consequences - whether financial, reputational, revealing a competitive advantage, affecting the team or affecting customers.
The decision is difficult, expensive, or impossible to reverse.
There is a clear point at which approval must be given or withheld.
Multiple stakeholders must collectively support the decision.
When those conditions exist, readiness becomes a discipline in its own right. It is not the same as monitoring milestones, budgets or delivery progress. Its purpose is to ensure that decision-makers have the confidence and evidence they need to authorise the event.
That is why readiness planning begins at the end. The word "ready" means something different to each of them, hence we need to ask: "What decision will each important person need to make on the go-no-go day?" and "What evidence would each of these stakeholders need in order to feel confident to say yes to that decision?"
I imagine the final go/no-go meeting. Around the table sit representatives from the parts of the business, and each of them is being asked to make a different decision:
Product is deciding whether the solution is, at minimum, fit for purpose and capable of delivering its intended outcomes, and ideally provides a compelling experience that meets or exceeds stakeholder commercial expectations
Operations is deciding whether the business can, at minimum, operate safely and effectively after the change, maintaining service levels and performance targets, and ideally emerge more efficient, scalable and easier to run than the current state
Customer teams are deciding whether customers will, at minimum, have a coherent experience and be protected from unacceptable disruption, and ideally have a positive experience that strengthens trust in the organisation and reflects well on the brand
Finance is deciding whether money can, at minimum, continue to flow into and out of the organisation correctly, on time and in compliance with financial controls, and ideally whether financial operations will become simpler, more efficient and easier to manage.
Technology is deciding whether the platform, systems and controls are, at minimum, stable, supportable and secure, and ideally resilient, scalable and capable of supporting future growth.
Commercial is deciding whether costs, risks and controls remain, at minimum, within agreed tolerances, and ideally whether the change is positioned to realise its expected value and benefits.
Leadership is deciding whether the organisation is, at minimum, sufficiently prepared to proceed responsibly, and ideally positioned to achieve the strategic outcomes that justified the change in the first place.
Readiness is about preparing people to make a decision about the event. Readiness is therefore confidence status, not completion status.
Everything else flows from that idea. And when the irreversible moment arrives, everyone understands not only whether they are ready, but why they believe they are ready.
The examples below are illustrative rather than exhaustive. Every project creates a different readiness landscape, and the stakeholder groups that need confidence will vary accordingly.
Some projects may require dedicated readiness assessments for areas such as Information Security, Cyber Security, Risk, Legal, Compliance, Supplier Management, Procurement, Facilities, Data, Regulatory Affairs or Human Resources. Others may combine responsibilities under broader business functions.
The important point is identifying the people whose support is required, understanding the decision each of them must make, and gathering the evidence they need to make that decision with confidence.
-
Decision sought: "I believe the solution can deliver the intended outcomes."
Example evidence:
The solution performs the business processes it was designed to support
Users can successfully complete the activities that matter most
Any defects that remain do not prevent the intended outcomes being achieved
Known gaps and workarounds have been assessed and accepted, ideally with a date for resolution
Product, business and delivery stakeholders share a common understanding of what will and will not be available at go-live
Measures are in place to monitor whether the expected outcomes are being achieved after launch
-
Decision sought: "My team and I can continue to operate safely tomorrow."
Example evidence:
Support model established
Training completed
Operational procedures defined, updated, published
Escalation routes defined
Staffing, rota and resource requirements confirmed
Operational rehearsals, or simulations completed successfully
Business continuity and contingency arrangements agreed
-
Decision sought: "Any customer impact or experience is understood and acceptable."
Example evidence:
Customer communications prepared, approved and scheduled
End-to-end customer journeys tested
Customer-facing content, guidance and support materials updated
All customer-facing teams briefed and prepared for expected enquiries
Any expected deterioration in customer experience is understood, quantified and accepted
Plans are in place to monitor for adverse events and respond quickly after go-live
-
Decision sought: "We can continue to collect revenue, make payments and meet our financial obligations after this change."
Example evidence:
Customer invoicing processes tested
Payment collection processes tested
Payroll processes validated
Supplier payment processes tested
Bank interfaces, payment platforms and financial integrations tested successfully
Reconciliations completed successfully in test environments
Finance teams trained and prepared to support the new processes
Manual workarounds documented for critical financial activities
Financial risks understood and accepted
-
Decision sought: "The systems are ready to support the event."
Evidence:
Non-functional testing complete
Monitoring, alerting and reporting capabilities in place
Rollback and recovery arrangements understood and rehearsed
Support arrangements established
Service desk and support teams briefed and prepared
Performance and capacity testing completed
System integrations tested successfully
Known technical risks, defects and workarounds understood and accepted
-
Decision sought: "The commercial outcomes remain achievable and acceptable."
Example evidence:
Revenue-generating capabilities available and operational
Sales and Account Management teams are prepared
Customer and contractual commitments can continue to be met
Expected business benefits remain achievable
Commercial risks identified, assessed and accepted
Success measures and benefit tracking arrangements established.
-
Decision sought: "The organisation should proceed."
Example evidence:
All subject matter experts feel ready and are prepared to make a clear “go” recommendation
Risks are transparent, understood and owned
Trade-offs and compromises are understood and accepted
Appropriate fallback and contingency plans are in place
The consequences of proceeding are understood; the consequences of delaying or cancelling are understood
The expected benefits and strategic rationale remain valid