A project is not ready because a plan exists

What the paper develops

I have watched projects arrive at kickoff with a sound schedule, a signed charter, and supportive leaders in the room, yet still be unready to start.

The missing pieces were promises from people outside the delivery team: who would settle the first hard decision, and which result would guide that choice? Which business experts would join design and testing, and did the named architect have hours left after the meeting ended?

In this paper's reading, a kickoff date creates its own momentum, because once invitations go out, asking whether the project should start can sound like obstruction. Leaders should test readiness before the date goes on the calendar, while the sponsor still has to explain why the project can start.

The sponsor should answer four questions with proof a reviewer can check before leaders grant the project a start date. The questions look past the plan to the people and choices on which that plan depends.

Can the sponsor decide?

The sponsor must be able to settle the choices the project will face, or confirm that another leader will take the question. Before kickoff, list the first three or four hard decisions and write down who can make each one. A sponsor who avoids naming those choices may lack the authority the project needs.

What result will count?

Name one result the business can test and state what this stage of work leaves out. "Implement the platform" names a product, but it does not say what should improve after people use it. The person who will live with the result should agree to the result and its limits in writing.

Will the right people take part?

Support in a meeting does not reserve anyone's time, so name the experts needed for workshops, tests, data checks, and the handover. Set dates their managers can confirm. Forty names on a list may be useful for communication; six people with confirmed hours tell leaders whether the work can start.

Do named staff have time?

Check the architect, product owner, data expert, and other scarce roles against work already under way. Consider a test lead named in several approved plans that each look sound alone. Together, the plans may ask for more hours than one person has, and no one has added the assignments across projects.

Three firm promises cannot make up for one hopeful answer, because a sponsor with authority but no clear result may make a fast choice about the wrong thing. A clear result will not help if business experts never join the work, so reviewers should press hardest on the weakest answer.

Run the review before kickoff with the sponsor, the person who owns the result, and the person who can settle staff conflicts. Leaders can start, reduce the work, fund a short discovery stage, or wait, but they should record why they chose that path. Review the four promises again if a key person, result, or promised date changes.

A readiness review may take time, but an unsupported start may create more delay. Measure speed from approval to the first useful result, and track which missing promises caused projects to need a new start. Those records tell leaders whether the review saved time and which question needs to change.