Project plan: closing the capability gap
Written by a person. Last read by a person on 2026-09-07, 1 day ago. Its facts were checked by the eval suite on 2026-09-07.
You are judging whether this can actually be run, or you want to know who decides what and when.
Scenario-based sample. Halden Systems is invented, and so is every figure about it.
For Halden Systems, across 9 sites.
Bottom line. 4 phases over 18 months, each ending at a gate with a named decider and the evidence they decide on. Phase 1 is already running and costs nothing. No phase begins before the gate ahead of it closes, and 2 of the 4 gates can stop the program.
The phases
| Phase | Months | What it produces | Gate | Who decides |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Pilot and instrument | 0 to 3 | Dublin result, survey, baseline escalation rate | Is the gap real and measurable | Director of Enablement |
| 2. Prove at 2 sites | 4 to 8 | The unit run twice by people who did not design it | Does it work without its author | COO |
| 3. Procure and build | 9 to 13 | Vendor signed, content and assessment in place | Is the platform earning its cost | COO with Procurement |
| 4. Scale to 9 sites | 14 to 18 | Local capability at every site | Is this now a permanent function | COO with the site directors |
Phase 1 is running. Dublin has already produced its result, and the survey is in the field, so the first gate is about reading evidence rather than waiting for it.
The gates, and what closes them
A gate is not a review meeting. Each one names a number, and the number is available before the meeting.
Gate 1, is the gap real. Closes on the survey showing a completion-to-understanding gap above 30 points, and on the baseline escalation rate being measurable from calendars and ticket queues rather than estimated. Opens if both hold. Stops the program if the gap is under 15 points, because at that size the cost of the program exceeds the cost of the problem.
Gate 2, does it work without its author. Closes on 2 sites running the unit with no involvement from the person who designed it, and on median days to a first merged change falling below 20 at both. Stops the program if either site needs the designer to run it, because a program that cannot be handed over is a consulting engagement with an internal invoice.
Gate 3, is the platform earning its cost. Closes on the vendor meeting the acceptance criteria in the statement of work. Does not stop the program: a failure here changes the vendor or reverts to building, and the capability work continues either way.
Gate 4, is this permanent. Closes on escalations per person per week falling below 1.2 across the inner population, sustained for 2 quarters. A failure here does not stop the program; it stops the expansion and returns the function to maintaining what works.
Dependencies, including the ones we do not control
| Dependency | Owner | Outside our control |
|---|---|---|
| Survey response rate above 40% | Director of Enablement | Partly. Site directors decide whether to encourage it |
| Baseline escalation data from calendars and tickets | VP Engineering | No |
| A named local expert at each of the 4 sites that have one | Site directors | Yes. They are volunteering their people |
| Vendor response window | Procurement | Yes. 3 to 6 weeks and it does not compress |
| Legal review of the data-processing terms | General Counsel | Yes. Queue depth is not ours to set |
| The job commitment being published | Chief People Officer | Yes. This is the one that can quietly not happen |
The last row is the dependency most likely to be missed, because nothing breaks visibly when it slips. It is on the risk register for that reason.
Risks, with owners
| Risk | Owner | What we do about it |
|---|---|---|
| The program is not needed. The gap closes on its own as people learn by exposure | Director of Enablement | Gate 1 measures it. Under 15 points we stop and say so |
| Site directors read this as a budget grab | COO | Regional budgets stay regional through year 1, stated in the strategy |
| The job commitment is never published | Chief People Officer | Gate 2 does not close without it |
| The vendor is late or fails acceptance | Procurement | Payment is tied to acceptance, not dates. Build-against-buy is revisited rather than absorbed |
| Engineering resents the time cost | VP Engineering | The program removes engineer hours rather than asking for them. Measured monthly and reported |
| Assistance rollout outruns capability again | Director of Enablement | No new tool reaches the outer population without a capability check first |
| The designer leaves | COO | Gate 2 exists to prove this does not matter |
The first risk is the one most plans omit. A program whose own plan cannot describe the condition under which it should not exist is asking for trust rather than a decision.
What runs in parallel, and what cannot
Content authoring, assessment design and the local-expert network all run from month 4 and do not wait for procurement. That is deliberate: the parts that depend on a vendor are the parts we should be least attached to.
Procurement cannot start before gate 1, because an evaluation matrix written before the survey would be weighted against a problem we had guessed at.
Scaling cannot start before gate 2. Running the unit at 9 sites when it has worked at 1 is how a program that worked becomes a program nobody trusts.