Project management plan
AlphaHow the programme will actually be run: decision rights, one plan, the change route, and what each gate has to prove.
What it is for
To make the programme legible — what is being spent, what is being decided, what is slipping, and who is accountable — before any of those become contested.
- Audience
- Steering committee, workstream leads, assurance.
- The decision it supports
- Whether this programme can be governed at the speed it needs.
Inputs — 7 blocking
Blocking means the document cannot be honestly drafted without it. The rest can be left open and marked as such.
Scope baseline and exclusions
From /scope
The areas in scope, the streams they sit on, the modules dragged in, and what is explicitly out.
Delivery
Governance structure and decision rights
In the library
Forums defined by what they decide, not by seniority, with terms of reference, quorum and cadence.
Delivery · Programme Governance
Delegation mapping
Only you have it
Financial and scope authority traced back to the organisation's own delegation instrument, so approvals inside the programme are valid.
Finance · Programme Governance
One integrated plan
From /scope
A single schedule across workstreams with dependencies named. Not one plan per workstream stapled together.
Delivery · PMO & Programme Governance
Gate criteria
In the library
What each gate has to prove, agreed while nobody is under pressure to say yes.
Delivery and assurance · PMO & Programme Governance
Resourcing and backfill
Only you have it
Named people at named percentages, with backfill funded and confirmed by the managers losing them.
Business owners · Digital Transformation Readiness Checklist
Change control route
In the library
How scope, budget and schedule change deliberately: who raises, who assesses impact, who approves at which threshold, and how cumulative impact is reported.
Delivery · Change Requests
Draft around these if needed
Risk, issue, decision and action registers
In the library
One of each, across the programme, with single named owners and visible ageing.
Delivery · Actions and Decisions
Reporting cadence and audience
Only you have it
What each forum gets, and what it is expected to do with it. Papers ahead of the meeting, with a recommendation.
Delivery · Programme Governance
Assurance arrangement
In the library
Who checks the programme independently, and who they report to. Assurance reporting into the programme director is not assurance.
Sponsor · Be a Hero
Decision latency baseline
Only you have it
How long a decision takes today, measured before mobilisation. A programme needs them faster, not slower.
Delivery · Empower People
What your scope already answers
- Scope and exclusions: 6 topics across 3 modules — including Customer Relationship Management, Supply Chain Management, unpicked.
- Interfaces to specify: 4, including the hand-offs where only one side is being changed.
- Release order: 1. Order Management · 2. Accounts Receivable
- Assumed already in place: Inventory, General Ledger — depended on, not included.
First draft
2/9 sections the scope could speak to
Generated from your scope. It is not a finished document and it does not pretend to be — where a section needs something only you have, it says so rather than inventing a plausible sentence, because plausible sentences are the ones that get left in.
Project management plan
Scope, exclusions and baseline
The change covers 1 chosen area — Order to Cash — which in turn implies 6 topics across 3 modules: Customer Relationship Management, Supply Chain Management and Financial Accounting.
Customer Relationship Management and Supply Chain Management were not chosen. They are in scope because the value streams the chosen areas sit on cross into them, so work happens there whether or not it was planned for. This needs to be accepted or the scope reduced — it should not be left unstated.
The scope depends on Inventory and General Ledger without including them. That is fine if they are staying as they are, and a gap in the plan otherwise.
Governance, decision rights and delegations
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
The integrated plan and critical path
The dependency order gives 2 releases: 1. Order Management; 2. Accounts Receivable. Items within a release have no unmet prerequisite inside the scope and can start together.
Gates and what each one proves
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Resourcing, backfill and capacity
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Change control and the baseline discipline
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Risk, issue and decision management
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Reporting, assurance and escalation
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Closure: what has to be true for this to end
To write. The scope cannot supply this one.
Still needed
- Delegation mapping — Financial and scope authority traced back to the organisation's own delegation instrument, so approvals inside the programme are valid.
- Resourcing and backfill — Named people at named percentages, with backfill funded and confirmed by the managers losing them.
As markdown, to lift into a document
# Project management plan ## Scope, exclusions and baseline The change covers 1 chosen area — Order to Cash — which in turn implies 6 topics across 3 modules: Customer Relationship Management, Supply Chain Management and Financial Accounting. Customer Relationship Management and Supply Chain Management were not chosen. They are in scope because the value streams the chosen areas sit on cross into them, so work happens there whether or not it was planned for. This needs to be accepted or the scope reduced — it should not be left unstated. The scope depends on Inventory and General Ledger without including them. That is fine if they are staying as they are, and a gap in the plan otherwise. ## Governance, decision rights and delegations > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## The integrated plan and critical path The dependency order gives 2 releases: 1. Order Management; 2. Accounts Receivable. Items within a release have no unmet prerequisite inside the scope and can start together. ## Gates and what each one proves > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Resourcing, backfill and capacity > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Change control and the baseline discipline > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Risk, issue and decision management > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Reporting, assurance and escalation > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Closure: what has to be true for this to end > To write. The scope cannot supply this one. ## Still needed - **Delegation mapping** — Financial and scope authority traced back to the organisation's own delegation instrument, so approvals inside the programme are valid. - **Resourcing and backfill** — Named people at named percentages, with backfill funded and confirmed by the managers losing them. _First draft from a scope. 2 of 9 sections had something the scope could say; the rest need a person, and so does everything under Still needed._
Outline
- 01Scope, exclusions and baseline
- 02Governance, decision rights and delegations
- 03The integrated plan and critical path
- 04Gates and what each one proves
- 05Resourcing, backfill and capacity
- 06Change control and the baseline discipline
- 07Risk, issue and decision management
- 08Reporting, assurance and escalation
- 09Closure: what has to be true for this to end
What separates a useful one from a compliant one
- —Every forum has stated decision rights, including what it cannot decide.
- —There is one schedule, not one per workstream.
- —Gate criteria were set before anyone was under date pressure.
- —Escalation has a service level, so raised issues cannot simply sit.
- —The plan says what would make the programme stop.
The rest of the set