Governance rollout
A rollout you can click before you fund it
Nobody approves an operating-model programme from a slide deck. I built the rollout as an interactive model, including the calculator that decides how much governance a project gets.
- Weights and configuration exposed, so the tiering rule can be argued with
- Scoring is editableWeights and configuration exposed, so the tiering rule can be argued with
- Templates per governance tier, so proportionality is concrete rather than promised
- Tiered artefactsTemplates per governance tier, so proportionality is concrete rather than promised
- Static pages — it runs anywhere and outlives whoever set it up
- Zero buildStatic pages — it runs anywhere and outlives whoever set it up
The client
A delivery organisation deciding whether to fund a management-office rollout — an initiative that is easy to describe, hard to picture, and usually approved or killed on how convincing the description sounds.
The engagement
The rollout itself delivered as an interactive artefact — progress model, schedule, scoring calculator, risk register and artefact templates by governance tier — hosted as a static site.
The problem
Governance programmes get approved on rhetoric and then resented in practice, usually because the organisation only discovers what compliance costs after committing. The two questions that decide adoption — which projects get how much process, and what exactly does a team have to produce — are always answered in a slide as a principle, and principles do not survive a project manager's first look at the template.
What I did
I made the two decisive questions interactive. The scoring calculator is driven by configuration and weights the reader can change, so the tiering rule stops being an assertion and becomes something leadership can test against projects they know — and disagreeing with the weights is a productive conversation rather than a blocked one. The artefact templates sit alongside it in full, per tier, because proportionality is only believable when you can see that a small project produces four documents and a critical one produces twelve. The rest of the rollout — schedule, streams, prerequisites, risks — is there so the funding conversation is about a plan rather than an intention. It is built as static pages with no build step on purpose: an artefact about governance that requires a toolchain to open will not be opened.
What was built
An interactive rollout model combining a progress dashboard, a schedule, a project scoring calculator driven by editable configuration and weights, a risk register, prerequisites and implementation streams — backed by the real artefact templates per governance tier, from project charter and work breakdown to risk register and status reporting.
On the table at the end
- Interactive rollout dashboard with schedule and streams
- Project scoring calculator with editable configuration and weights
- Risk register and prerequisites
- Artefact templates by governance tier
What it changed
Let leadership interrogate a governance programme before funding it: change the scoring inputs and watch which projects land in which tier, see the schedule, read the actual templates a team would have to fill in.
How it ran
- 01
Make the tiering rule testable
A scoring calculator with editable weights, so leadership can run their own projects through it and argue with the result.
- 02
Show the actual templates
Artefact sets per tier in full, because proportionality is only credible when the paperwork is visible.
- 03
Put the plan next to the principle
Schedule, streams, prerequisites and risks, so funding is discussed against a plan rather than an ambition.
- 04
Keep the risks in the artefact
The rollout's own risk register included, rather than kept in a separate document nobody opens.
- 05
Zero build, deliberately
Static pages that open anywhere and outlive the person who made them — a governance artefact must not need a toolchain.
Other work
All case studies →- Enterprise software
Data and people existed; the process and the cockpit did not
A delivery assurance function owned everything and controlled nothing. I diagnosed nineteen gaps, designed the target operating model, and put stop conditions in the roadmap so it could not become another initiative nobody uses.
- Portfolio management
Earned value that survives an empty project
Portfolio dashboards go green because the data model rewards going green. I built one that measures in hours, sorts by trouble, and refuses to report a number it does not have.
- Professional services
A project office that lives in a git repository
Project knowledge lived in people's heads and chat threads, and AI tools were producing confident documents with no provenance. I made the repository the single source of truth and gave every project management role a written protocol.
Something similar on your plate?
Thirty minutes, no deck. I will tell you whether it is worth doing at all.