Successful Partnerships: The Deliverables
This series shows how partnerships become learning systems—align purpose, build trust, share data, co-create, test fast and govern—deploying 16 deliverables to scale results today.
Here’s the premise of this series: great partnerships are not mere contracts; they are learning systems. When they work, they turn diverse perspectives into shared insight and better decisions, faster than any party could achieve alone. When they fail, it is usually because intent never hardened into the artifacts and habits that make learning continuous and reliable.
This article introduces the backbone of such a system: sixteen deliverables that translate purpose into practice. They are not bureaucracy; they are the scaffolding that lets creativity and trust compound. Each artifact clarifies a question partnerships often leave fuzzy—why we are doing this, what “good” means, who decides what, how we measure progress, and how we de-risk bold ideas.
The opening set aligns intent and standards. A Partnership Charter & Vision sets the North Star and guardrails. A Challenge Brief translates ambition into a solvable problem with users and constraints. An Outcomes & Measurement Plan defines how success will be evidenced, and Roles, Decision Rights & Governance make accountability and escalation explicit.
Execution then gets time-bound and concrete. A Workplan & Milestone Roadmap sequences the path. A Data Sharing & Security Agreement unblocks lawful access early. An IP, Licensing & Publication Agreement removes fear of contribution and clarifies how results can be used. An Experimentation Plan creates a safe ladder from ideas to pilots with kill/scale gates.
Because reality bites, we institutionalize risk and information flow. A Risk, Assumptions & Dependencies Register turns surprises into managed work. A Communication & Escalation Plan establishes cadences, channels, and SLAs. A User Research & Requirements Dossier anchors choices in evidence, and a Prototype/PoC Package converts claims into runnable proof against the Minimum Credible Win.
Operating and scaling require their own discipline. An Operating Playbook standardizes routine tasks, monitoring, and incident response. A Training & Enablement Kit builds competence and confidence for users and admins. An Outcomes Report & Case Study captures impact and lessons with rigor. Finally, a Transition, Scaling & Sustainability Plan secures ownership, budget, and roadmap so value survives beyond the pilot.
Across cases and sectors, partnerships that adopt these deliverables learn faster, argue less about opinions, and make better, earlier decisions. The artifacts make reasoning visible, reduce ambiguity, and preserve momentum when conditions change. Just as importantly, they preserve credit, codify know-how, and create on-ramps for new contributors without restarting the learning curve.
In the rest of the series, we will unpack each deliverable with templates, acceptance criteria, and examples. The aim is practical: give you the minimal set of living documents that keep a partnership honest, adaptive, and innovative—so shared purpose becomes shared results, repeatedly.
Summary
1) Partnership Charter & Vision
A co-authored, two–three page statement of purpose, scope, outcomes, and guardrails that aligns incentives and sets the “North Star.” It translates ambition into 2–3 measurable results and a Minimum Credible Win (MCW), clarifies what is in/out of scope, and establishes cadence and constraints so the work starts focused and stays focused.
2) Challenge Brief (Problem Statement & Context)
A crisp, operational definition of the problem to solve, the users involved, the constraints that apply, and the acceptance tests that define “done.” It ensures any competent team could begin immediately and deliver against the same standard, avoiding ambiguity and scope creep.
3) Outcomes & Measurement Plan
A KPI tree with baselines, targets, methods, and reporting cadence that makes progress objective and decisions defensible. It prevents vanity metrics, aligns both sides on the same numbers at the same time, and connects day-to-day work to the partnership’s goals.
4) Roles, Decision Rights & Governance (RACI + Decision Matrix)
A concise map of who is responsible, who is accountable, who must be consulted, and who should be informed—plus how decisions are made and escalated. It eliminates dropped balls and re-litigation, speeds decisions, and keeps momentum without politics.
5) Workplan & Milestone Roadmap
A time-bound plan that sequences phases, milestones, dependencies, resources, and demo dates. It converts intent into an executable path, surfaces constraints early, and protects critical timelines with buffers and readiness gates.
6) Data Sharing & Security Agreement
A documented, auditable pact that enables safe, lawful access to the data required for delivery. It inventories data and sensitivity, defines access and minimization, sets privacy/security controls, and specifies incident response and data exit—so compliance never blocks progress.
7) IP, Licensing & Publication Agreement
A clear agreement on who owns what, who may use what (and how), and what can be communicated publicly. It protects commercial interests, encourages contribution, and enables learning to be shared appropriately via defined licenses, attribution, and approval workflows.
8) Experimentation Plan (Experiment Ladder)
A structured plan to test hypotheses quickly and safely—from paper analysis to prototype to A/B to pilot—with explicit success/fail gates. It maximizes learning velocity, caps downside risk, and pre-commits both parties to kill/scale decisions based on evidence.
9) Risk, Assumptions & Dependencies Register (RAD)
A living register that makes risks, key assumptions, issues, and dependencies visible, owned, and actively managed. It turns surprises into managed work, shortens reaction time, and links uncertainties to mitigation tasks and decision records.
10) Communication & Escalation Plan
A documented cadence (weekly demos, monthly steering), channels, update templates, and an escalation ladder with SLAs. It creates shared situational awareness, reduces rework, and ensures issues rise to the right level fast.
11) User Research & Requirements Dossier
An evidence-backed definition of user needs, contexts, and constraints, translated into prioritized functional and non-functional requirements with acceptance criteria. It anchors decisions in reality and prevents building the wrong thing.
12) Prototype / Proof-of-Concept Package
A runnable, end-to-end demonstration with setup notes, test data, evaluation results, and known limits. It converts ideas into evidence against the MCW, proves feasibility and value, and provides clear next-step recommendations.
13) Operating Playbook (Runbook & SOPs)
A practical manual for operating the solution reliably: routine tasks, monitoring and alerts, incident response, security/compliance steps, and change management. It enables consistent performance regardless of who is on shift and reduces operational risk.
14) Training & Enablement Kit
Role-based curricula and assets (guides, labs, videos, assessments) that build user/admin competence and confidence. It accelerates adoption, reduces support load, and protects outcomes as teams change or scale.
15) Outcomes Report & Case Study (Sanitized)
A rigorously evidenced account of impact, ROI, lessons learned, and next-step options, with an approved external version where permitted. It informs internal decisions and credibly showcases results to stakeholders and the public.
16) Transition, Scaling & Sustainability Plan
A concrete plan for post-pilot ownership, budget, staffing, rollout, technical readiness, and compliance—plus decommission criteria. It ensures value survives and grows beyond the initial team, with clear governance and funding for the next phase.
The Deliverables
1) Partnership Charter & Vision
What it is (and why it matters)
A two–three page, co-authored document that states the shared purpose (“why”), the boundaries (“what we will / won’t do”), and the concrete outcomes for this phase. It aligns incentives, turns ambiguity into testable goals, and prevents scope drift.
When & owners
Create in Week 0–1 before any build. Owner: Partnership Lead. Co-authors: Partner Sponsor(s), Delivery Lead, Legal/Data Steward (for guardrails).
Core contents (expanded)
Purpose & Context: One paragraph on the problem/opportunity and why now.
North Star & Phase Outcomes: 1 long-term North Star; 2–3 phase outcomes with targets and dates.
Minimum Credible Win (MCW): The smallest outcome that justifies renewal (metric + threshold + date).
In-scope / Out-of-scope: Bullet lists with examples; name tempting items that are explicitly excluded.
Constraints & Guardrails: Legal/compliance, data tiers, budget/time caps, ethical boundaries.
Working Cadence: Weekly demo, monthly steering; comms channels; decision log location.
Success & Renewal: What gets measured, by whom, and the continue/scale/stop criteria.
Process to create (90–120 min charter workshop)
Draft by Partnership Lead → 2) Live edits with Sponsor, Delivery, Legal/Data → 3) Resolve disagreements in-room → 4) Finalize and calendar reviews.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Vague outcomes → Write outcomes as “From X (baseline) to Y (target) by DATE.”
Hidden constraints emerge later → Include a “Known Unknowns” list with validation tasks.
Charter forgotten → Pin in workspace; review at start of each weekly demo.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Baselines verified; targets dated.
MCW stated as a metric + threshold.
In/Out of scope both present.
Constraints named with owners.
Cadence and decision-log URL live.
Mini-template
PURPOSE: We will [solve/opportunity] for [users] to achieve [North Star].
PHASE OUTCOMES (by DATE): O1: from [baseline] to [target]; O2: ...
MCW: We will achieve [metric ≥ threshold] by [DATE] or stop/reshape.
SCOPE: In — [...]. Out — [...].
CONSTRAINTS: [data/compliance/budget/time/ethics].
CADENCE: Weekly demo [day/time], monthly steering [day/time]. Decision log: [URL].
RENEWAL CRITERIA: Continue/Scale/Stop rules: [...]
2) Challenge Brief (Problem Statement & Context)
What it is (and why it matters)
A crisp, operational brief that translates the charter into a solvable challenge with users, constraints, data, and acceptance tests. It ensures any competent team could start and deliver against the same definition of “good.”
When & owners
Week 1 immediately after the Charter. Owner: Problem Owner (from the partner). Audience: Delivery Team, Mentors, Stakeholders.
Core contents (expanded)
Current vs. Desired State: Concrete facts about today; the target scenario.
Users & Stakeholders: Primary users (JTBD/personas), secondary stakeholders, decision-makers.
Problem Statement: One sentence, testable.
Operational Constraints: Time windows, legal/policy constraints, infra limits, change-management realities.
Data & Assets Available: Tables/APIs, quality notes, access method, approvals required.
Acceptance Tests & Evidence: “We will consider this solved when…(tests, metrics, user observations).”
Timeline & Milestones: Key dates, demos, sign-offs.
Risks/Dependencies: Top 5 with owners and mitigation plan.
Ethics & Privacy: Red lines, consent, anonymization/ synthetic data plan.
Creation process (fast loop)
User interviews (3–5), desk review of existing artifacts, data availability check, then a 30-min read-through with delivery and sponsor to tighten acceptance tests.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
“Boil the ocean” scope → Add explicit exclusions and a v1/v2 roadmap.
Unavailable data discovered late → Include a data access rehearsal task in week 1.
Ambiguous users → Name a primary user and a single primary use case for the Phase 1 MCW.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
A new team could execute using just this brief.
At least one acceptance test is objective and automated (metric or script).
Data access path is documented and trialed.
Problem statement is one sentence and testable.
Mini-template
CURRENT → DESIRED: Today [X]; target is [Y] by [DATE].
PRIMARY USER: [Role]; JTBD: [job]. Secondary stakeholders: [...]
PROBLEM STATEMENT: [One sentence testable statement].
DATA/ASSETS: [sources], access via [method], approvals: [names].
ACCEPTANCE: Pass when [tests/metrics]; evidence required: [dashboards/notes].
TIMELINE: Milestones & demos: [dates].
RISKS/DEPENDENCIES: [top items + owners].
ETHICS/PRIVACY: [rules, redactions, consent].
3) Outcomes & Measurement Plan
What it is (and why it matters)
A KPI tree, baselines, targets, and reporting rhythm that make progress objective and decisions defensible. It prevents vanity metrics and ensures both parties see the same numbers at the same time.
When & owners
Week 1–2. Owner: Analytics/PM. Inputs from Data Steward, Sponsor, Delivery.
Core contents (expanded)
KPI Tree: North Star → Outcome KPIs → Leading indicators → Counter-metrics (to catch harm).
Baselines & Targets: Verified current values; dated targets; confidence notes.
Measurement Methods: Formulas, data lineage, filters, attribution rules, windowing.
Data Sources & Quality: Tables/APIs, refresh cadence, caveats, data owners.
Reporting Cadence & Views: Weekly demo view (leading indicators), monthly steering view (impact & risk), ad-hoc deep dives.
Governance: Where dashboards live; who can edit; versioning and audit notes.
Creation process
Measurement workshop to define the KPI tree and counter-metrics.
Data audit to confirm availability and quality.
Baseline capture with screenshots/SQL and owner sign-off.
Build the initial dashboard and embed links into the decision log.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Unavailable metrics → Redesign KPIs around available proxies; log a plan to upgrade data in later phases.
Perverse incentives → Add counter-metrics (e.g., reduce handling time and maintain NPS ≥ X).
Spreadsheet drift → Lock formulas in a shared dashboard; prohibit local “shadow” sheets.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Every KPI has an owner, formula, and source table/API.
Baselines are evidenced (query + screenshot) and dated.
Targets are numeric and time-bound.
Counter-metrics exist for each primary KPI.
Example KPI tree (illustrative)
NORTH STAR: Time-to-decision for [process] ↓ 30% by 31 Dec.
OUTCOME KPIs:
- Median TTD: from 10d → 7d
- Error rate: ≤ 1.5%
LEADING INDICATORS:
- % cases with auto-suggestions ≥ 70%
- Reviewer queue time ≤ 2h
COUNTER-METRICS:
- NPS ≥ 45
- Reopen rate ≤ 3%
4) Roles, Decision Rights & Governance (RACI + Decision Matrix)
What it is (and why it matters)
A concise map of who does what, who decides what, and how issues are escalated. It eliminates dropped balls, endless re-litigation, and slow, political decision-making.
When & owners
Week 1. Owner: Program Manager. Sign-off: Partner Sponsor, Delivery Lead.
Core contents (expanded)
RACI per Workstream: For each deliverable and milestone, name the Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed.
Decision Matrix: Define decision types (e.g., product scope, technical approach, data access, legal/PR) and specify decision-makers, required evidence, and consultation list.
Cadence: Weekly demo (decisions ≤ X scope); monthly steering (cross-workstream or policy decisions); quarterly strategy (renewal/scale).
Escalation Path & SLA: Owner → Sponsor → Steering; target unblocking within 72 hours.
Issue/Risk Register: Visible board with owners, due dates, status.
Creation process
Draft RACI from the Workplan; circulate for comment; resolve overlaps/gaps in a 30-min session; publish the Decision Matrix with examples; add links to the decision log.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Too many approvers → Cap approvers to one Accountable; others are Consulted.
Phantom ownership → Names, not teams; acceptance tests attached to each deliverable.
Escalations stall → SLA with calendar holds for Steering; a neutral facilitator/ombud to mediate.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Every deliverable has a named Responsible and a single Accountable.
Decision types list includes product, technical, data, legal/PR, finance.
Escalation ladder and SLA published; meeting invites on calendars.
Decision records are being written from week 1.
Example (excerpt)
RACI—Prototype Package
Responsible: Tech Lead (Your Org)
Accountable: Product Owner (Partner)
Consulted: Security Lead, Clinical SME
Informed: Steering Committee, Support Manager
Decision Matrix (sample rows)
Product scope change >2 weeks → Decider: Product Owner; Evidence: KPI impact analysis; Consult: Tech Lead, Ops; Record: DR-023
Data access to table X → Decider: Data Steward; Evidence: DPIA + access log; Consult: Legal, Security; Record: DR-031
Public comms / case study → Decider: Partner Comms Lead; Evidence: sanitized metrics + approvals; Consult: Legal, Program; Record: DR-044
Mini-template
WORKSTREAM: [Name]
DELIVERABLE: [Name] — R:[person], A:[person], C:[roles], I:[roles]; Acceptance: [tests]
DECISION TYPES:
- [Type]: Decider [role], Evidence [required], Consult [roles], Record [ID]
CADENCE: Weekly demo [day/time]; Monthly steering [day/time]; Risk board: [URL]
ESCALATION: Owner → Sponsor → Steering; SLA: unblock ≤72h
5) Workplan & Milestone Roadmap
What it is (and why it matters)
A time-bound plan that sequences work into phases and milestones with clear dependencies, demo dates, and resource assignments. It translates intent into an executable path so everyone knows what happens next and when.
When & owners
Create in Weeks 1–2 and update as signals change. Owner: Delivery Lead / Program Manager. Co-authors: Workstream Leads, Partner Sponsor.
Core contents (expanded)
Phases & Objectives: What each phase must achieve to justify the next (linked to outcomes/MCW).
Milestones & Demos: Calendar dates with acceptance tests and named approvers.
Dependencies & Critical Path: Technical, data, legal, and people dependencies with lead times.
Resourcing & Capacity: Roles, time commitments, backfills, and blackout dates.
Buffers & Risk Gates: Contingency for high-uncertainty items; “go/no-go” checkpoints.
Change Control: How scope/date changes are proposed, assessed, and approved.
Process to create
Draft a straw-man Gantt/roadmap; collect dependency lead times (legal, security, data); run a 45-minute “date fight” session to reconcile reality vs. wishful thinking; publish v1 with a weekly update rhythm.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Optimism bias on dependencies → Add explicit lead times and owners for legal/data/security.
Demo drift → Put demos on calendars with named approvers and acceptance criteria.
Hidden work → Capture “glue work” (environments, onboarding, access) as first-class tasks.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Every milestone has a date, acceptance test, and approver.
Critical dependencies have owners and lead times.
Resource constraints and holiday calendars are reflected.
A buffer exists for the top three uncertainties.
Mini-template
PHASES: P1 [goal], P2 [goal], P3 [goal]
MILESTONES: M1 [date, acceptance, approver] … Mn […]
DEPENDENCIES: [item] — owner [name], lead time [x days]
RESOURCING: [role → % allocation], blackout dates [list]
BUFFERS/RISK GATES: [where + % buffer], go/no-go [criteria]
CHANGE CONTROL: request → impact analysis → approver [role]
6) Data Sharing & Security Agreement
What it is (and why it matters)
A documented pact that enables safe, lawful, auditable data access without slowing delivery. It prevents last-minute blockers, protects users, and keeps both parties compliant.
When & owners
Weeks 1–2, before any data moves. Owner: Data Steward / Security Lead. Co-authors: Legal/Privacy, Partner Data Owners, Tech Lead.
Core contents (expanded)
Data Inventory & Classification: Sources, fields, sensitivity tiers (Green/Amber/Red), retention, and provenance.
Access Controls: Who can access what, through which mechanism (accounts, roles, VPN/VPC), and from where.
Minimization & Anonymization: Field-level minimization, hashing/pseudonymization, synthetic data plans for high-risk fields.
Processing & Storage: Environments, encryption at rest/in transit, logging/monitoring, third-party sub-processors.
Legal/Privacy Basis: Lawful basis, DPAs, DPIA outcomes, consent/notice requirements.
Audit & Incident Response: Logging, periodic reviews, breach notification steps and SLAs.
Data Exit/Deletion: How and when data is returned or destroyed; verification method.
Process to create
Run a 60-minute inventory workshop; draft the matrix; conduct an access rehearsal with fake credentials; complete DPIA/records; get sign-off from Legal/Security and the data owners.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Unclear field sensitivity → Classify at the field level with examples and default rules.
Shadow exports → Prohibit local copies; enforce auditable, role-based access paths only.
Late legal reviews → Calendar a privacy/security checkpoint in Week 1 with named approvers.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Field-level inventory exists with sensitivity and purpose of use.
Access is live for named roles; a rehearsal succeeded.
DPIA/DPA (as applicable) are completed and stored.
Exit and deletion procedures are documented and testable.
Mini-template
INVENTORY: [source.table] — fields [..] — tier [G/A/R] — purpose [..]
ACCESS: Role [..] → method [..] → location [..] → approver [..]
MINIMIZATION: [fields dropped/masked], synthetic plan [..]
SECURITY: Storage [..], encryption [..], logs [..], sub-processors [..]
LEGAL/PRIVACY: Basis [..], DPIA [id], DPA [id], notices [..]
INCIDENT: detect [..], notify [SLA], remedy [..]
EXIT/DELETION: [steps], verification [..], date [..]
7) IP, Licensing & Publication Agreement
What it is (and why it matters)
A clear agreement on who owns what, who can use what (and how), and how the work may be communicated publicly. It eliminates fear of contribution, protects commercial interests, and enables learning to be shared appropriately.
When & owners
Weeks 1–2, before build or research begins. Owner: Partnership Leads + Legal. Inputs: Tech Lead, Comms, Product.
Core contents (expanded)
Ownership Model: Partner-owned, joint/shared, or open-source by default; scope each to code, models, data, docs.
Licensing Terms: Commercial, internal-use, dual license, or open license (e.g., MIT/Apache); attribution and redistribution terms.
Contribution Tracking: Lightweight process to record who contributed what and when.
Background vs. Foreground IP: What each party brings vs. what is created; restrictions on use.
Publication & Comms: What can be published, when, and by whom; approval workflows; sanitization thresholds.
Revenue/Benefit Sharing (if any): Triggers, splits, and reporting.
Dispute Resolution: Venue, sequencing (mediation/arbitration), and timelines.
Process to create
Choose a default model (e.g., partner-owned with teaching rights); enumerate artifacts; run a 45-minute negotiation session on edge cases; write approvals into the roadmap (e.g., case study gate).
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Ambiguous “joint” work → Tie ownership shares to contribution logs; specify fallbacks.
Publication surprises → Require a comms plan with a minimum review window and a sanitized metrics appendix.
Background IP leakage → List background assets explicitly; restrict derivative rights as needed.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Ownership and license are explicit for each artifact class (code/models/data/docs).
Publication workflow has approvers and lead times.
Contribution tracking is live (even a simple log).
Edge cases (forks, reuse, derivative works) are addressed.
Mini-template
OWNERSHIP: Code [model], Models [model], Data [model], Docs [model]
LICENSE: [commercial/internal/dual/open + terms]
BACKGROUND IP: Party A [list], Party B [list]
FOREGROUND IP: [scope + rights]
PUBLICATION: Allowed [topics/artifacts], approval [roles + days], sanitization [rules]
BENEFIT SHARING: [triggers %, duration]
DISPUTE RESOLUTION: [process]
CONTRIBUTION LOG: [location, fields: who/what/when/link]
8) Experimentation Plan (Experiment Ladder)
What it is (and why it matters)
A structured plan to test hypotheses quickly and safely—from paper analysis to prototype to A/B to pilot—each with clear success/fail gates. It maximizes learning velocity while capping downside risk.
When & owners
Week 2–3; refreshed at each milestone. Owner: Product/Tech Lead. Inputs: Domain Lead, Data Steward, Sponsor.
Core contents (expanded)
Hypotheses & Rationale: Plain-English statements with the decision they inform.
Experiment Types & Sequence: Paper calc → offline prototype → controlled A/B → limited pilot.
Metrics & Thresholds: Primary outcome, leading indicators, and counter-metrics with numeric gates.
Risk Budget & Safeguards: Time, money, and reputational risk caps; rollback plans; monitoring.
Ethics & Compliance Checks: Pre-mortem on harms; approvals required; user notice/consent if needed.
Decision Gates & Dates: Kill/scale rules, approvers, and calendar holds.
Process to create
Run a 60-minute hypothesis workshop; translate each into an experiment card; validate data availability; schedule gates with named approvers; preload dashboards to track metrics in real time.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Sunk-cost drift → Pre-commit to kill/scale criteria and publish them in the decision log.
Vanity metrics → Add counter-metrics and user impact checks.
Scope creep within experiments → Time-box spikes; defer extras to the backlog.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Every hypothesis maps to one experiment with a date and gatekeeper.
Metrics have formulas, sources, and baselines.
Risk safeguards (rollback, monitoring) are documented.
Ethics/compliance approvals are recorded where relevant.
Mini-template
HYPOTHESIS: We believe [change] will [effect] for [users] because [reason].
EXPERIMENT TYPE/SEQ: [paper → proto → A/B → pilot]
METRICS: Primary [..], leading [..], counter [..]; thresholds [..]
DATA/SOURCE: [tables/APIs], baseline [value/date]
RISK BUDGET: [time/money], safeguards [rollback, monitoring]
GATE: Kill if [..], scale if [..]; approver [role]; decision date [..]
9) Risk, Assumptions & Dependencies Register (RAD)
What it is (and why it matters)
A single, living register that makes risks, key assumptions, issues, and dependencies visible and owned. It turns surprises into managed work, shortens reaction time, and preserves momentum.
When & owners
Start in Week 1 and review weekly. Owner: Program Manager. Contributors: Workstream Leads, Legal/Security, Data Steward, Partner Sponsor.
Core contents (expanded)
Risks: Description, probability, impact, trend, owner, mitigation plan, trigger signals, next review date.
Assumptions: Statement to be validated, validation task/experiment, due date, owner, fallback if false.
Dependencies (internal/external): What is needed, from whom, by when, lead time, status, escalation contact.
Issues: Active problems with an SLA, owner, and resolution path.
Heatmap & Priority: Simple scoring (e.g., P×I), top five called out in weekly demos.
Decision Links: DR-IDs for choices affected by a risk/assumption (traceability).
Process to create
Run a 45-minute RAD workshop (brainstorm → de-duplicate → score → assign owners). Publish the register. In each weekly demo, review top five, update statuses, and confirm next actions. Link RAD entries to the decision log and backlog items.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Stale register → Make a 5-minute RAD review part of every weekly demo.
No ownership → Assign a named owner for every line; no “team” entries.
Vague mitigations → Require a concrete task, date, and success signal for each mitigation.
Assumptions linger untested → Tie every assumption to an experiment and a due date; auto-escalate if missed.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Top five risks have active mitigations and next review dates.
Every assumption has a validation task on the plan.
Dependencies list has owners, lead times, and escalation contacts.
A heatmap and “watch list” are visible in the weekly deck.
Mini-template
RISK: [description] P:[L/M/H] I:[L/M/H] Trend:[↗/→/↘]
OWNER: [name] MITIGATION: [task + date + success signal]
TRIGGERS: [what we watch] NEXT REVIEW: [date] LINKS: DR-0xx, JIRA-yyy
ASSUMPTION: [statement]
VALIDATE BY: [experiment/task] DUE: [date] OWNER: [name]
FALLBACK IF FALSE: [plan]
DEPENDENCY: [item] FROM: [party/contact] DUE: [date] LEAD TIME: [x days]
STATUS: [not requested/requested/confirmed/blocked] ESCALATE TO: [name]
10) Communication & Escalation Plan
What it is (and why it matters)
A documented cadence and set of channels that keep everyone aligned, informed, and unblocked. It reduces miscommunication, prevents rework, and ensures issues rise to the right level fast.
When & owners
Define in Week 1. Owner: Program Manager. Sign-off: Partner Sponsor, Delivery Lead, Comms Lead (if public comms are in scope).
Core contents (expanded)
Cadences & Purpose: Weekly demo (progress/risks/decisions), monthly steering (cross-workstream priorities), ad-hoc design/tech reviews.
Channels & Norms: Where updates live (workspace, dashboard, decision log), response-time expectations, time-zone etiquette.
Update Templates: RAG status, top 3 blockers, decisions needed, changes since last update.
Decision Logging: DR format (context → options → choice → rationale → next steps), storage, who can create/approve.
Escalation Ladder & SLA: Owner → Sponsor → Steering; unblock target in ≤72 hours; emergency path and contacts.
Contact Matrix: Who to reach for what (data, legal, security, infra, product), with back-ups.
Process to create
Map stakeholders and time zones; set meeting invites for an entire phase; agree templates and pin them in the workspace; simulate one escalation to test the path; run the first demo using the templates.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Channel sprawl → Name one official workspace and forbid decisions in chat without DR follow-up.
Silent stakeholders → Require a named delegate for every meeting; publish minutes and actions within 24 hours.
Slow escalations → Pre-book 15-minute daily hold slots for sponsors to handle escalations quickly.
Ambiguous ownership of updates → Assign a primary and alternate updater per workstream.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Cadences are on calendars through the phase.
Update and DR templates are adopted and visible.
Contact matrix has back-ups and mobile/after-hours info where appropriate.
One test escalation has been run and documented.
Mini-template
CADENCE:
- Weekly Demo: [day/time, agenda: metrics, RAG, top 3 blockers, decisions]
- Monthly Steering: [day/time, agenda: priorities, risks, resourcing]
CHANNELS: Workspace [URL], Dashboard [URL], Decision Log [URL]
NORMS: Response ≤[x]h; time-zone windows [..]; meeting notes ≤24h
ESCALATION: Owner → Sponsor → Steering | SLA: unblock ≤72h
EMERGENCY: [contact names + numbers], hours [..], fallback [..]
CONTACT MATRIX:
- Data Steward: [name, backup, email/phone]
- Legal/Privacy: [...]
- Security: [...]
- Infra/DevOps: [...]
- Product/Comms: [...]
11) User Research & Requirements Dossier
What it is (and why it matters)
A rigorously evidenced definition of user needs, contexts, and constraints, translated into prioritized requirements and acceptance criteria. It prevents building the wrong thing and anchors decisions in reality.
When & owners
Weeks 2–5, then living. Owner: Design/UX Lead. Contributors: Product Owner, SME(s), Researchers, Delivery Team.
Core contents (expanded)
Personas & JTBD: Primary user archetypes with Jobs-To-Be-Done, goals, pains, and environments.
Journey Maps & Scenarios: Key workflows, edge cases, environmental constraints.
Evidence Pack: Interview notes, observation logs, artifacts/screenshots, quantified pain frequencies.
Requirements (Functional/NFR): User stories with priority (MoSCoW), acceptance criteria; NFRs (security, privacy, latency, uptime, accessibility).
Traceability Matrix: Requirement ↔ evidence ↔ KPI impact ↔ test cases.
Ethics/Accessibility Considerations: Consent, data minimization, WCAG needs, inclusion of vulnerable groups.
Sign-offs: Named approvers and dates; change history.
Process to create
Conduct 5–10 interviews across roles; observe real use where possible; synthesize into themes; run a playback session with users and stakeholders; draft stories and NFRs with acceptance criteria; get sign-off; connect items to KPIs and tests.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Solution bias → Separate problem discovery from solution workshops; require evidence citations per requirement.
Overfitting to power users → Ensure sample diversity; weight by user share/impact.
Missing NFRs → Include security/privacy/ops early; use a standard NFR checklist.
Static document → Treat as living; version and revisit after each pilot.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Each high-priority requirement has evidence and acceptance criteria.
NFRs are explicit, testable, and signed off by security/ops.
Traceability to KPIs exists.
Users (or their proxies) have reviewed and approved the dossier.
Mini-template
PERSONA: [role] — JTBD: [job] — ENV: [context]
EVIDENCE: [interviews/observations references]
USER STORY: As a [persona], I need [capability], so that [outcome].
PRIORITY: [M/S/C/W] ACCEPTANCE: [Given/When/Then]
EVIDENCE LINK: [doc/page] KPI LINK: [metric]
NFR: [e.g., P95 latency ≤ 300ms | WCAG AA | audit log retention 12m]
TRACEABILITY: [story ↔ test case ↔ KPI]
SIGN-OFF: [names + dates]
12) Prototype / Proof-of-Concept Package
What it is (and why it matters)
A runnable, end-to-end demonstration that proves feasibility and value against the MCW, with enough documentation that others can reproduce it. It converts “idea” into “evidence.”
When & owners
Mid-engagement (e.g., weeks 6–10). Owner: Tech Lead. Approvers: Product Owner (partner), Security/Data for compliance, Pilot Users for usability.
Core contents (expanded)
Executable Demo: Hosted or local run with seed data; clear “happy path.”
Setup & Ops Notes: Readme, environment variables, credentials model, deployment steps, logs/monitoring basics.
Test Data & Scenarios: Sanitized/synthetic data; scripts for repeatable tests; coverage of key edge cases.
Evaluation Results: Metrics vs. baseline and targets; error analysis; user feedback summaries.
Known Limits & Risks: What it doesn’t do yet; technical debt; data or policy constraints.
Next-Step Recommendations: Options (do nothing, iterate, scale); effort/impact estimates; dependencies.
Process to create
Reduce scope to MCW; build the smallest end-to-end slice; test with actual users; measure against the Outcomes Plan; address security/privacy basics; package artifacts; conduct a formal demo with sign-off.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Demo works only on the author’s machine → Provide container/infra scripts and a reproducible runbook.
No baseline comparison → Include before/after metrics and methodology.
Security/privacy overlooked → Run a lightweight review; redact logs; use synthetic data if needed.
Hand-wavy “next steps” → Provide 2–3 concrete options with cost/benefit and risk.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Anyone following the readme can run the demo.
MCW metric is met or a clear gap analysis exists.
Compliance checks (security/privacy) are recorded.
A decision memo recommends continue/scale/stop with evidence.
Mini-template
DEMO: [URL or run command] VERSION: [tag/date]
SETUP: [prereqs, env vars, deploy steps, run/stop]
TEST DATA: [location], SCENARIOS: [list with IDs]
RESULTS: [baseline → pilot metrics], methodology: [notes]
LIMITATIONS: [list] RISKS: [list + owners]
RECOMMENDATION: [continue/scale/stop + rationale + effort/impact]
APPROVALS: Product [name/date], Security [name/date], Users [summary]
13) Operating Playbook (Runbook & SOPs)
What it is (and why it matters)
A practical, step-by-step manual for operating the solution in production (or at pilot scale). It standardizes routine tasks, incident response, and change management so performance is reliable regardless of who is on shift.
When & owners
Draft as the PoC stabilizes; finalize before scale/handover. Owner: Ops/Engineering Lead. Contributors: Partner Ops, Support, Security/Compliance, Product.
Core contents (expanded)
Service Overview: Purpose, key capabilities, supported use cases, SLOs/SLAs.
Runbook Tasks: Daily/weekly/monthly routines (health checks, reconciliations, backups).
Operational Procedures (SOPs): Start/stop/restart, deploy/rollback, config changes, data refresh, access provisioning.
Monitoring & Alerts: Dashboards, alert thresholds, on-call rotation, paging rules, runbooks per alert.
Data Ops: Data pipelines, validation checks, lineage, retention/archival, reprocessing steps.
Security & Compliance: Least-privilege roles, audit logs, secrets management, approvals, audit evidence locations.
Incident Management: Severity levels, comms templates, escalation tree, post-incident review steps.
Change Management: Environments, release cadence, approvals, smoke tests, feature flags.
Dependencies & Contacts: External services, vendor SLAs, named owners, support contracts.
Process to create
Shadow actual ops for a week; convert tacit steps into checklists; dry-run start/stop/deploy procedures; simulate two critical incidents; iterate based on gaps; obtain sign-offs from security and partner ops.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Runbook drift → Assign a doc owner; require updates as part of the release checklist.
Implicit knowledge → Record screen captures or short videos linked from SOPs.
Unclear alerting → Tie each alert to a runbook with a clear first action and escalation.
Missing compliance evidence → Include audit evidence paths and retention timelines in the playbook.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
A new operator can perform daily checks and a deploy/rollback using only this document.
Alerts map 1:1 to runbooks; paging/escalation is unambiguous.
Security/Compliance sections are approved; audit evidence locations are listed.
Two incident simulations completed; post-mortems captured.
Mini-template
SERVICE OVERVIEW: [purpose, SLO/SLAs, owners]
RUNBOOK: Daily [list], Weekly [list], Monthly [list]
SOPs: Start/Stop [steps], Deploy/Rollback [steps], Config Change [steps]
MONITORING: Dashboards [links], Alerts [name → threshold → runbook]
DATA OPS: Pipelines [list], Validations [list], Retention [policy]
SECURITY/COMPLIANCE: Roles [matrix], Secrets [where], Audit [evidence path]
INCIDENTS: Sev levels [S1..S4], Escalation [tree], Templates [links]
CHANGE MGMT: Envs [dev/test/prod], Cadence [..], Approvals [roles]
DEPENDENCIES: [service] → owner/contact/SLA
SIGN-OFFS: Ops [..], Security [..], Partner [..]
14) Training & Enablement Kit
What it is (and why it matters)
A structured set of materials and activities that make users and admins competent and confident. It reduces support load, raises adoption, and protects outcomes as teams change.
When & owners
Finalize before handover/scaling; maintain as features evolve. Owner: Enablement Lead. Contributors: Product, UX, Ops, Partner Training/HR.
Core contents (expanded)
Audience Paths: Separate curricula for end users, power users, admins/support.
Learning Objectives & Assessments: Measurable objectives mapped to tasks; quizzes/labs; certification criteria.
Delivery Assets: Slide decks, short videos, step-by-step guides, sandbox exercises, quick-reference cards.
Practice Data & Scenarios: Realistic, sanitized cases; edge-case drills; scoring rubrics.
Change Notes: What’s new, deprecations, migration tips, versioning.
Support On-Ramps: How to get help; known issues; FAQ; office hours calendar.
Process to create
Define role-based objectives; script 3–5 tasks per role; capture step-by-step walkthroughs; pilot training with a small cohort; measure task completion time and errors; iterate and certify trainers; schedule recurring sessions.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Too generic → Use authentic workflows and partner artifacts; avoid abstract demos.
One-and-done training → Offer refreshers and micro-modules tied to releases.
No proof of competence → Require short practical assessments for certification.
Docs rot → Version materials; link them from the product; assign update owners.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Each role can complete top tasks within target time/error thresholds.
Assessments exist and are pass/fail clear; certification is issued.
Materials are accessible (searchable, WCAG-compliant where relevant).
Support pathways and office hours are published.
Mini-template
AUDIENCES: End User | Power User | Admin
OBJECTIVES: [per audience, measurable]
CURRICULUM: Modules [list], Duration [..], Prereqs [..]
ASSETS: Slides [..], Videos [..], Guides [..], Labs [..], QRC [..]
SCENARIOS: [task] → steps → expected outcome → scoring
ASSESSMENT: [quiz/practical], pass bar [..], badge [..]
SUPPORT: Help channels [..], Office hours [..], FAQ [link]
VERSIONING: Current ver [..], change log [link], owner [name]
15) Outcomes Report & Case Study (Sanitized)
What it is (and why it matters)
A rigorously evidenced account of impact, learning, and next steps—usable internally for decisions and, where permitted, externally for reputation and stakeholder engagement.
When & owners
At the end of a phase or pilot; update on major milestones. Owner: Partnership Lead / Analyst. Approvals: Legal/Comms, Partner Sponsor.
Core contents (expanded)
Executive Summary: Problem, approach, headline results, decision recommendation.
Context & Baseline: Where we started; constraints; baseline metrics with sources.
Interventions & Methods: What was built/tested; experiment ladder; governance highlights.
Results: KPIs vs. targets; confidence intervals/limitations; counter-metrics; qualitative feedback.
ROI/Impact: Financial and non-financial benefits; time-to-value; risk reduction; benchmark comparisons.
Lessons Learned: What changed in our understanding; playbook updates; known limits.
Quotes & Visuals: Stakeholder/user quotes (approved); charts/tables; before/after snapshots.
Publishing Appendix (sanitized): What can be shared, redactions, approvals, comms plan.
Next-Step Options: Continue/scale/stop with costs, risks, and expected impact.
Process to create
Lock metrics with Analytics; collect qualitative evidence; draft visuals early; run a fact-check review; obtain legal/comms approvals; produce both a full internal report and a sanitized external case.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Unverifiable claims → Include methods, sources, and an analyst sign-off.
Cherry-picking → Present counter-metrics and limitations; explain trade-offs honestly.
Approval bottlenecks → Pre-book review windows; maintain a redaction checklist.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
All metrics trace to sources; baselines and methods are explicit.
A clear decision recommendation is justified by evidence.
Legal/comms approvals recorded; sanitized version exists if allowed.
Lessons are codified into playbooks/templates.
Mini-template
SUMMARY: [problem → approach → results → recommendation]
BASELINE: [metric= value/date/source]
INTERVENTIONS: [what we did; experiments; governance notes]
RESULTS: [KPI → baseline → outcome → target], counter-metrics [..]
ROI/IMPACT: [savings/revenue/time/risk], assumptions [..]
LESSONS: [bullets], Playbook updates [links]
QUOTES/VISUALS: [approved]
NEXT STEPS: [continue/scale/stop + cost/impact/risk]
APPROVALS: Legal [..], Comms [..], Sponsor [..]
16) Transition, Scaling & Sustainability Plan
What it is (and why it matters)
A concrete plan for who owns the solution after the pilot, how it will be funded and staffed, and how it will scale (or be decommissioned) responsibly. It ensures value survives beyond the initial team.
When & owners
Draft in the final month of the phase; finalize at renewal/exit. Joint Owners: Product Owner (partner) + Program Lead (your side). Contributors: Finance, Ops, Security, HR/Talent.
Core contents (expanded)
Ownership & Operating Model: Post-pilot RACI; budget holder; service levels; governance cadence.
Funding & Business Case: Opex/Capex, cost centers, savings/benefits realization plan, re-investment.
Team & Talent: Roles, hiring/backfill plan, skill matrix, training schedule, vendor support terms.
Scale Roadmap: Phased rollout plan, dependencies, change management, communications, readiness gates.
Technical Readiness: Capacity/performance plan, resilience, observability, tech debt backlog, deprecation strategy.
Risk & Compliance: Ongoing audits, data lifecycle, regulatory obligations, third-party reviews.
Exit/Decommission Criteria: Triggers, data hand-back/deletion, archiving, knowledge capture.
Renewal Options: Continue/scale/stop criteria tied to KPIs and budget windows.
Process to create
Hold a transition workshop with finance/ops/security; draft the RACI and budget; run a readiness review (people, process, tech); pilot rollout to one additional unit; resolve gaps; finalize with signatures and calendar the first governance meetings.
Common pitfalls → mitigations
Owner vacuum → Name a single accountable owner and budget line; document escalation.
Underfunded scale → Tie rollout to realized savings or staged funding gates.
Capability gap → Include hiring/training and vendor support SLAs; stagger handover.
Neglected end-of-life → Define decommission triggers and data exit steps now.
Quality checklist (sign-off bar)
Post-pilot owner, budget, and governance cadence are defined and calendared.
A staffed team (or hiring plan) exists with training scheduled.
Rollout gates and readiness checks are documented; a pilot scale step is planned.
Exit/decommission criteria and data lifecycle steps are explicit.
Mini-template
OWNERSHIP: Post-pilot A:[role/name], R:[roles], Governance [cadence]
BUDGET: Opex [..], Capex [..], Benefits realization [plan], Reinvest [..]
TEAM: Roles [..], Hiring/backfill [..], Skills matrix [link], Training [schedule]
SCALE ROADMAP: Phases [..], Readiness gates [..], Comms [..]
TECH READINESS: Capacity [..], Resilience [..], Observability [..], Debt [backlog]
RISK/COMPLIANCE: Audits [..], Data lifecycle [..], Regulatory [..]
EXIT/DECOMMISSION: Triggers [..], Data hand-back/deletion [..], Archive [..]
RENEWAL: Criteria [KPI thresholds/time windows], Options [continue/scale/stop]
SIGN-OFFS: Product [..], Finance [..], Ops [..], Security [..]
 | A guest post by
|