Making continuation a decision

What the old review could not see

Investments were reviewed on milestones and red, amber or green status. Those reports answered one question well: is the plan being followed? They could not answer whether the outcome the investment was funded for was still likely, or whether a newer proposal needed the same people. An initiative could be green on every line and still be the wrong thing to keep funding.

What I changed

I rebuilt the review around three questions. What was this investment meant to change? What evidence do we have now? What does continuing take from the rest of the portfolio?

Two things changed in the room. Product leaders presented the evidence themselves, instead of a delivery manager reporting status on their behalf. And senior technology and business leaders made the call together, in the same forum, so a conflict found in the review could be resolved there. I brought a recommendation to each review; the panel decided.

A pivot the old review would have missed

In one review, early evidence showed an initiative was delivering to plan but not moving the outcome it was funded for. Under the old reporting it would have stayed green. The panel changed its scope and direction instead. The review made continuation an explicit decision supported by evidence, rather than the automatic consequence of staying on plan.

The harder part

The process was the easy bit. Product leaders had been rewarded for shipping on time, so a review that asked about outcomes felt like a change of rules mid-game. I coached them on writing goals they could be held to as outcomes, and on bringing a change of direction to the panel before the panel had to ask for one.