Uploaded byAssociation for Project Management
Opportunity framing
The document discusses the concept of opportunity framing in project management, particularly within the energy sector and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), highlighting its role in improving project outcomes and mitigating risks associated with poor project definition. It emphasizes the importance of stakeholder alignment and providing decision-driven tools during project inception and execution phases. Furthermore, it outlines various business units and initiatives using opportunity framing and its potential to standardize practices across industries and government projects.
More Related Content
Similar to Opportunity framing
![Project Feasibility [DECEMBER 2006]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/projectfeasibilitydecember2006-130516112918-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
More from Association for Project Management
Opportunity framing
- 1. Opportunity Framing Karl Sanderson Headof Cross-Industry Learning
- 2. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Karl Sanderson, Headof Cross-Industry Learning Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) Background in steering complex projects in the energy sector. Used Opportunity Framing widely to shape mega-projects in a variety of contexts and across a variety of operators, including Chevron, AP Moller Maersk, Total & the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Prior to joining the energy sector in 2005, Karl honed his project management skills across a wide cross- section of industries, on initiatives as diverse as IT systems deployments, business outsourcing & consultancy, & has co-founded a number of high- tech start-ups.
- 3. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Premise of thisWebinar: A root cause of project failure can be poor up-front shaping Facilitated Opportunity Framing at project inception, repeated through front-end-loading, mitigates the risk of later project recycle, ensures that the project is decision rather than task driven, and provides the right tools for optioneering. Framing is being rolled out across HM Government’s Major Projects Portfolio, and agencies such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are taking the process even further by applying it more widely to the NDA estate. Topics covered: • What is opportunity framing and how can it help make project outcomes more predictable • Framing as a tool for achieving stakeholder alignment • How framing fits into stage-gated project maturation – what it adds that is commonly missing • The origins of framing, practitioners, and its current roll-out across the public sector • Wider uses of framing outside of projects including; policy formulation; strategic decisions; strategic procurements
- 4. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Improving the Predictabilityof Project Outcomes Addressing Root Causes of Project Failure Optimism bias, political bias & strategic misrepresentation Under- estimation e.g. inadequate tools; norms; reference class forecasts; probabilistic analysis / threat identification; benchmarking Basic Data & Scope Creep e.g. late change requests, inaccurate inventory / Geotech. Exogenous Threats e.g. political priorities; regulatory change; protest groups Contracting Strategy e.g. abandoned fixed / target prices; misaligned incentives) Execution Strategy e.g. inappropriate critical path, wrong phasing, minimal work- fronts Project Management e.g. immaturity at gates, missed deliverables, unstaffed positions Poor Shaping Optioneering e.g. lack of exploration of full option space, lack of aligned option screening Decision Quality e.g. lack of underpinning from decision support packages Scope e.g. unclear boundaries leading to late changes, failed dependencies Risks Poor understanding of threats and particularly opportunities Decision Hierarchy Project Execution Plan task-driven rather than decision-driven Misalign- ment e.g. within the project team, across wide stakeholder group Source: Sanderson et al. ‘Improving the Predictability of Project Outcomes’, DEM 2021, Sep 2021
- 5. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Size of thePrize Source: UK IPA Annual Report on Major Projects 2019-20, Figure 5 Summary by Delivery Confidence Assessment – project number and Whole Life Cost • Improved predictability of Cost, Schedule & Scope • Some other-industry analogous projects over-run by up to 40% • Average nuclear project over- runs average 3x cost and 2x schedule* • More green Delivery Confidence Assessments Source: Edward W. Merrow, Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for Success, Wiley & Sons, Inc., April 2011 Some outcomes were as predicted Some outcomes were adverse *source Budzier et al, Quantitative Cost & Schedule Risk Analysis of nuclear Waste Storage, December 2018, also K. SANDERSON, “UK NDA Application of Reference Class Forecasting in Optimism Bias Adjustment”, September 2019, IAEA Workshop on Cost Estimation and Cost Analysis of Nuclear Projects and Programmes, Idaho Falls USA)
- 6. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Civil Nuclear Cost& Schedule Outcomes The Good The Bad & The Ugly Good • Narrowing uncertainties, mitigating risk and banking opportunities over time • Each range of estimates within the range of previous Bad • Base estimate not plotting on the S-curve (i.e. <P0) • Narrow range of estimates Ugly • Repeated narrow ranges • No range overlaps with previous • Re-baselining during execution Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Cross-Industry Decommissioning Cost & Schedule Webinar, September 2019, www.totaldecom.com
- 7. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL VALUE Identify & Assess Opportunity Select Alternative Execute Operate Define PoorProject Definition Good Project Definition Poor Project Execution Good Project Execution PID SOC OBC FBC Initial Framing Updated Frame Updated Frame # Options under consideration L o n g L i s t S h o r t L i s t S i n g l e C o n c e p t Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 1, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022 Relationship to Value Adding and Optioneering during FEL
- 8. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Industry View -Oil & Gas Commonality in Project Maturation Processes Concept Selection Stage 1 – Development/ Business Planning Stage 3 - Define Optimization/FEED/ Execution Planning Stage 4 - Execute Det. Design, Procurement, Constr., Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling Stage 5 - Operate Stage 2 - Select Evaluate & Select Dev & Business Planning PIR FID (Full Funding) Evaluation Concept Definition Execution Prodn & Close -out G G G Hand- over SU DSP DSP DSP DSP PHASE 1 IDENTIFY & ASSESS OPPORTUNITIES PHASE 2 GENERATE & SELECT ALTERNATIVES PHASE 4 EXECUTE PHASE 5 OPERATE & EVALUATE Decision Decision Decision Opportunity Framing Document Recommend Alternatives Funding Request IDENTIFY & ASSESS SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE Project Initiation Feasibility Study Concept Selection Basis for Design Project Specification Design, Construct, Commission Acceptance Test, Operate VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5 DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Pre-SU Audit Appraisal Concept Selection CTR STP Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Full Funding CP2 (Pre-Construction) CP1 (FEED) EMCAPS PfD VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 5 ODR 0 ODR 1 ODR 2 Pre-Project Study Prelim. Study Concept Study FDP/ PEP ITT Project Sanction Appraisal Works ~FEED / Basic Engineering Signed Contracts PRE -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPRAISAL & CONCEPTUAL ACCESS & APPRAISE SELECT DSP DSP Front End Loading Concept Selection Stage 1 – Development/ Business Planning Stage 3 - Define Optimization/FEED/ Execution Planning Stage 4 - Execute Det. Design, Procurement, Constr., Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling Stage 5 - Operate Stage 2 - Select Evaluate & Select Dev & Business Planning Stage 1 – Development/ Business Planning Stage 3 - Define Optimization/FEED/ Execution Planning Stage 3 - Define Optimization/FEED/ Execution Planning Stage 4 - Execute Det. Design, Procurement, Constr., Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling Stage 4 - Execute Det. Design, Procurement, Constr., Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling Stage 5 - Operate Stage 2 - Select Evaluate & Select Dev & Business Planning Stage 2 - Select Evaluate & Select Dev & Business Planning PIR FID (Full Funding) Evaluation Concept Definition Execution Prodn & Close -out G1 G2 G3 Hand- over SU DSP DSP DSP DSP Project Sanction FEL0 IDENTIFY FEL1 APPRAISE & SELECT FEL2 OPTIMIZE EXECUTE OPERATE AFF AFE IDENTIFY & ASSESS SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE Project Initiation Feasibility Study Concept Selection Basis for Design Project Specification Design, Construct, Commission Acceptance Test, Operate VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5 DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Pre-SU Audit IDENTIFY & ASSESS SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE IDENTIFY & ASSESS SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE Project Initiation Feasibility Study Concept Selection Basis for Design Project Specification Design, Construct, Commission Acceptance Test, Operate VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5 DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4 Pre-SU Audit Appraisal Concept Selection CTR STP Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Full Funding CP2 (Pre-Construction) CP1 (FEED) EMCAPS PfD START AR1 CO ODR 0 ODR 1 ODR 2 Pre-Project Study Prelim. Study Concept Study FDP/ PEP ITT Project Sanction Appraisal Works ~FEED / Basic Engineering Signed Contracts PRE -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPRAISAL & CONCEPTUAL Front End Loading Final Investment Decision AFD FEL3 DEFINE Concept Selection Evaluation G G Concept Definition Execution Prod & Close-out AR 3 FDP/ PEP ITT Signed Contracts FDP/ PEP ITT Signed Contracts DSP AR 2 Concept Study G PID SOC OBC FBC Proprietary approaches: • Big Pharmaceuticals • Big Oil & Gas • Large Consultancies (e.g. EY) • Boutique Consultancies (e.g. Decision Frameworks) • Engineering (e.g. KBR)
- 9. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL UK Government View Business justification Deliverystrategy Investment decision Readiness for service Operations review and benefits realisation Gates Stages Assurance reviews Strategic outline case Outline business case Full business case PID SOC OBC FBC Source: UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority, Opportunity Framing Facilitator Guide, March 2021 • Being formulated by the UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority (IPA) • Being piloted, but not yet issued for use • Proprietary, for HMG use only • Being applied to Government Major Projects Portfolio (GMPP)
- 10. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL IPA Opportunity FramingMethod Source: UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority, Opportunity Framing Facilitator Guide, March 2021 • Workshop setting key to achieving Stakeholder Alignment • May be repeated for different Stakeholder Groups • Succinct, written output, edited collectively
- 11. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Elements of aFrame Day 1 Day 2 Where are we now? How do we get there? Policy Requirements & Business Context Strategic versus Tactical Decisions; Options or Strategy Table Scope & Dependencies Decision Logic & Sequencing Givens & Constraints Stakeholders Value Drivers, Measures, Criteria + Critical Success Factors Governance Where do we want to be? Risks (Threats & Opportunities) Opportunity Statement Ambiguities Vision of Success Uncertainties Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Table I, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
- 12. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Stability of FrameElements between Stages Generally Stable between Stages Different Between Stages Policy Requirements & Business Context Givens & Constraints (increments at each Gate with prior Stage’s decisions Opportunity Statement + Vision of Success Strategic Decisions (completely different set for each stage) Value Drivers, Measures, Criteria + Critical Success Factors Decision Logic & Sequencing and interim assurance points Scope & Dependencies Scope - elements left on the fence will be resolved as in or out Governance (maturation philosophy) + Stakeholders Stakeholders (SRO, PM and Resources will evolve) Risks (Threats & Opportunities, though they get mitigated & banked) Uncertainties (though they narrow) Ambiguities (get resolved) Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, based on Table II, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
- 13. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Framing Pilots acrossthe NDA Estate Variety of; • Business Units • Initiative types • Stages of maturity • OF Processes • Formats 2021 Business Unit Opportunity Type Stage OF Process Format Jan Corporate Centre Framing Project Initiative Inception Generic O&G Virtual Feb Commercial Outsourced Decommissioning Capital Project Recycle IPA / EY / Generic O&G prototype Virtual Jun Corporate Centre Group Synergy Identification Logical Programme Inception IPA F2F Jul Sellafield New Build Store Capital Project OBC/FBC IPA / NDA Adapted Virtual Jul Sellafield New Build Vault Capital Project OBC/FBC IPA / NDA Adapted Virtual Oct BEIS / NDA Strategy Redacted Policy / Strategy Recycle IPA / NDA Adapted F2F Furthermore; • 5 IPA Pilots across various HMG departments & GMPP project types • NDA Pilots; Sellafield Programme (Major Hazard); Corporate Energy Strategy; Dounreay; Magnox
- 14. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL UK Government vsNDA Emphasis IPA NDA Focussed on projects at inception Programmes / Projects already in flight – focus on SOC and OBC as well as initiation Focus on Policy alignment NDA mission and nuclear policies mostly clear – focus on value added and optioneering Roadmap and IAAP part of frame Treat Roadmap & IAAP as separate deliverables, focus on options / strategy table and decision logic for next stage GMPP only Wider scope of applicability, perhaps 40 initiatives per year Facilitation by SQEPed IPA Facilitation by SQEPed IPA, NDA and third parties Prep plus 2-3 day workshop Prep plus 2-day workshop plus frame check(s) Mural Draft Output PowerPoint final output Both • Leverage same IPA user guide & toolset • Share pool of SQEPed facilitators to encourage cross-industry learning NDA specific: • ‘Cover Sheet’ for IPA Guides • Training (albeit with integrated accreditation)
- 15. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Strategic Decision Selection& Rationale Periodicity Maximum utility of Framing is at inception, and then again around SOC. There is less, but still enough value from framing at OBC to include a third framing event, but usually not beyond into execution. Relation to Gate Framing immediately before a Gate can be useful to support the Project Execution Plan (PEP) as a project deliverable, however this exposes the Frame to recycle after the gate, once sanction conditions are imposed, or the decision makers have gone against the project’s recommendation. To most efficiently utilise senior Stakeholder time and attention, it is recommended to hold Framing immediately following the gate, even at risk of modest revision to the PEP. The option remains to undertake Framing during the hiatus while a series of sanction bodies considers the business case. Mandatory The IPA will make Framing mandatory for Government Major Projects Portfolio, including those at the NDA. NDA Senior Persons Accountable (Decision Executives) will be invited, optionally, to consider Framing of their other initiatives. Facilitation Self-facilitation by Project Teams is not to be considered. A competent pool of SQEPed facilitators, ideally fungible across the public sector, thereby sharing good practices and disseminating cross-industry learning, is deemed best Value for Money. Internal Function Ownership Notwithstanding that ownership could change at a later date, the NDA expertise currently happens to reside in Risk & Assurance, though Framing is NOT being positioned as an assurance tool. Other organisations tend to offer Framing as part of the Project Maturation Methodological Toolset. External Function Ownership Further to review of cross-industry bodies potentially interest in Framing, the IPA’s contemporaneous initiative to roll-out Framing had the most obvious synergies. The opportunity remains for a wider industry institution to formulate Opportunity Framing as a national or international standard. Scope of Frame Rather than insist on all elements of the Frame at each event, a core set of elements is recommended, the rest optional. The precise nature of the core sub-set has been refined over the series of Pilots and remains under continuous improvement. Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Table III, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022 Strategies Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal Function Ownership External Function Ownership Scope of Frame Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix subset Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping Stages Only (up to and including FBC) Draft Frame before Gate, finalized thereafter Yes (for specified initiatives) Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure & Projects Authority Defined core elements + pick and mix Robust Assurance All Stages (including Execution and Close- Out) Immediately Follows Gate Corporate Centre Service for Estate (insourced) R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set Behaviour Change Outsourced by Corporate Centre R&A Other Cross-governmental / industry initiative / application of generic industry tool Competent pool of SQEPs Other Corporate Centre Not to be considered as an option Recommendation NDA Strategy Rational Individual Decisions
- 16. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Example Options &Strategy Table - NDA Strategic Decisions for Framing Strategies Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal Function Ownership External Function Ownership Scope of Frame Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix subset Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping Stages Only (up to and including FBC) Draft Frame before Gate, finalized thereafter Yes (for specified initiatives) Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure & Projects Authority Defined core elements + pick and mix Robust Assurance All Stages (including Execution and Close- Out) Immediately Follows Gate Corporate Centre Service for Estate (insourced) R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set Behaviour Change Outsourced by Corporate Centre R&A Other Cross-governmental / industry initiative / application of generic industry tool Competent pool of SQEPs Other Corporate Centre Not to be considered as an option Recommendation Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 2, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
- 17. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL NDA Strategy Rational AlternativeStrategies versus pre-agreed Value Drivers Targeted Facilitation Enhanced Assurance Robust Assurance Behaviour Change Cross- Governmental Decision Quality R O G G G Stakeholder Alignment G O R R G Delivery Confidence Assessment R O G G G Project Maturity O G G G G Scalability of the framing process G O R R O Cost of optioneering G O R R G Schedule for optioneering G O R R G R O G Good support for Value Driver Reasonable support for Value Driver Lower support for Value Driver Strategies Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal Function Ownership External Function Ownership Scope of Frame Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix subset Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping Stages Only (up to and including FBC) Draft Frame before Gate, finalized thereafter Yes (for specified initiatives) Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure & Projects Authority Defined core elements + pick and mix Robust Assurance All Stages (including Execution and Close- Out) Immediately Follows Gate Corporate Centre Service for Estate (insourced) R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set Behaviour Change Outsourced by Corporate Centre R&A Other Cross-governmental / industry initiative / application of generic industry tool Competent pool of SQEPs Other Corporate Centre Not to be considered as an option Recommendation
- 18. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL • Accessibility inunfavourable weather • Synergies with other assets • Rig selection • Rigless work 1 month Design, Maintenance & Operating Philosophy Rig Strategy XMAS Tree Location Lifetime Philosophy Satellite Abandonment Strategy Abandonment Strategy Power Supply Location Well Suspension Strategy Well Abandonment Strategy Level of Provisioning External Entity Negotiation Strategy Produced Water Strategy Execution Phasing of New Facilities Facilities Capacity Corporate Strategy Satellite Operating Philosophy CoP Date for existing Facilities Wave Study Exploration Future Developments Commercial Legal & Political Constraints Select Single Concept in addition to Reference Case Select Single Concept • Remove Ambiguities • Narrowing of uncertainties • Stakeholder Analysis • Communications Plan 5 months • Data Collection • Subsidence related integrity study • Identify resource wells • Compliance requirements 3 months Basin Strategy • Stakeholder Engagement • Negotiation Mandate • Stakeholder Engagement Plan 1 month • Negotiations 6-12 months • Study how long we want • Study what is possible 1 month • Gather Industry Lessons Learned • Define reference operations • Define targets / metrics • Technology / technique studies 4 months • Evaluate injection • Identify other candidate fields • Study purification technologies 1 month • Iterate production profiles from existing asset • Iterate future developments for all assets & third parties 4 months • Iterate future developments for all assets & third parties • Identify cost discontinuities 2 months • Technical feasibility study 4 months • Screening 2 months • Industry lessons learned • Legal / environmental studies • Contractor screening 4 months • Data collection • Inaccessibility window • Compliance requirements • Monitoring alternatives • Equipment reliability 8 months • Commercial structure • Idea of terms • Equipment List • Electric or gas turbine compressors 6 months • Pre-FEED update 3 months • Balance of Later Decisions ~6 months Focus Decision External Dependency Key: • Major inputs / tasks Potential critical paths A A Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 3 aspect enlargement, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022 Example Decision Logic – Select Stage
- 19. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Government Relations Firm Decision Basis Sanction Gate Shut-indate for Rebuild Upsides Accommodation Sizing Gas Carve Outs Gas Delivery Point Gas Nomination Regime Fiscal Levers Single Lift Accommodation Rigs Investment Proposals Gas Quality Future Riser Execution Sequence Accommodation Location during HUC Reference Case Tender Timing of By- pass Satellite Project Satellite Volumes Assured Volumes FID Focus Decision External Dependency Key: Decision Point / Off-ramp Example Decision Logic - Define Stage Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 3, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022 Select Stage for comparison Note how consideration of re- use / repurpose alongside decommissioning adds complexity
- 20. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Relationship of Framingto Assurance - Example Concept Select Stage Good Framing => Clear Integrated Assurance & Approvals Plan => Effective Assurance => Robust Business Case => Quality Decision Making Stage Boundary Stage Boundary SOC OBC Framing draft final Framing draft final Peer Reviews (2nd line) Approvals Assurance (1st line) Discipline Assurance (2nd line) Value Improving Practices Peer Assists IAAP e.g. cost, schedule, RCF, QRA, Benchmarking e.g. Design To Capacity. Constructability etc. e.g. Lessons Learned, Process Engineering, Risk Management, Rotating Equipment etc. e.g. SPER, PDRI Commercial (ECA), Legal e.g. IPA or NDA Integrated Gate Review, Decision Quality Tools e.g. Subsidiary Board, NDA Sanction Committee, PIC, TAP, MPRG Framing at SOBC ensures that short-listed concept alternatives are agreed in advance among stakeholders, have suitable screening criteria established for selecting between them, and that the decisions needed to narrow to a single alternative are clear and sequenced … … so that at OBC, the recommended single alternative can be robustly assured against the pre-agreed criteria for selection, and any gaps in decision making during the stage easily identified, ensuring high decision quality during approvals … properly sequenced decisions can be incrementally assured during the Stage …
- 21. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL NDA Scope ofImplementation In Scope Out of Scope Subsidiary Initiatives Major Capital Project and Programmes (requiring Central Sanction) Strategic Decisions Organizational Functions Small to Medium Capital Projects Corporate Restructuring Plant Turnarounds Operations & Maintenance Initiatives Beacon Projects Undecided Major or Strategic Procurements requiring assurance Framing Proof of Concept Source: NDA Frame for Framing v0.9, with resolution of Undecided * ONLY mandatory for GMPP Projects GMPP* IPA NDA
- 22. OFFICIAL OFFICIAL Addressing Root Causesof Project Failure Up-front contribution from Opportunity Framing Poor Shaping • Optioneering Clear decisions, alternatives within decisions, strategies • Decision Hierarchy Clear Givens & Decision Logic / Sequence • Scope Clear in & out, clear dependencies and actions re items ‘on-the-fence’ • Risks Wide Stakeholder brainstorming • Misalignment Project Team & Stakeholders aligned through framing process and frame check(s) • Decision Quality Framing a pre-requisite for high DQ. Value Drivers underpin formal screening of preferred alternatives Biases • Under-estimation Clearer range of uncertainties • Basic Data & Scope Creep Clear scope • Exogenous Threats Wider stakeholder views • Contracting Strategy Alternatives explored and appropriate option screened • Execution Strategy • Alternatives explored and appropriate option screened • Project Management Clarity through Roadmap as to maturity expected at Gates
- 23.