Fixed launch date before a defined benefit
A government agency has approved a citizen-portal project with a fixed launch date set by a minister's public announcement. The budget is EUR 2.4 million, the team is assembled, and the vendor contract is signed. The project charter lists deliverables and the launch date but no measurable benefits, no benefits owner, and no defined acceptance authority. The programme office asks you, the newly appointed project manager, to start execution immediately. The vendor has begun onboarding staff and expects a signed baseline plan. Two senior stakeholders disagree on whether the portal must replace or supplement the existing counter service; this decision changes scope, cost and operational staffing. The minister's office says any delay will be politically damaging. You have 10 working days before the vendor mobilisation payment is due. What do you do?
1. Identify the principle-based issues in starting execution now, and explain what you would do before authorising mobilisation.
Read the worked answer
Issues. Execution is being pushed before the project has a testable success definition. The concepts in ISO 21502 place justification, alignment with organizational strategy, defined objectives, governance and stakeholder engagement ahead of delivery speed. A charter with no benefits, owner or acceptance authority is not a sufficient basis for a EUR 2.4 million commitment.
What I would do before authorising mobilisation. (1) Convene the sponsor, business owner and programme office to document the intended benefits, measures, baseline and review points. (2) Confirm who can accept deliverables and who owns post-launch benefits. (3) Force a recorded decision on replace-versus-supplement through the governance body, with cost and staffing impacts. (4) Reassess the launch date against that decision and record assumptions. (5) Authorise only low-risk mobilisation activity, not full execution, until these conditions are met.
Reasoning. The launch date is a constraint, not a substitute for a mandate. Starting now would convert unresolved governance questions into uncontrolled scope and acceptance disputes. A short, focused governance gate is faster than recovering later.
2. The sponsor says the benefits can be defined after launch. How do you respond, and what is the risk if you accept?
Read the worked answer
Response. I would not accept 'define benefits after launch' as a planning approach. Benefits defined afterwards are usually reverse-engineered from whatever the project delivered, so they cannot justify the investment or test success.
Risks of accepting. No benefit owner means no one is accountable for realizing value; acceptance disputes are likely because 'done' is undefined; scope will expand to satisfy whichever stakeholder speaks last; and the organization cannot compare the promised value with the actual result.
Practical counter-proposal. Agree a minimum benefits profile within five working days: two or three measurable indicators, baseline values, target values, measurement method, owner and review dates. If the sponsor refuses, I would document the decision, state the residual risk in the business case or charter, and ask the steering body to accept that risk explicitly. I would not silently carry it. This respects the sponsor's authority while keeping the principle of justified, benefit-oriented investment visible.
3. What governance arrangement would you set up in the 10 days to keep the launch date decision transparent?
Read the worked answer
Governance in 10 days. Establish a project board or steering group with named decision rights for scope, budget above a threshold, launch date and acceptance. Publish a one-page RACI covering sponsor, business owner, project manager, vendor and operations. Create a decision log and a change log, and make the replace-versus-supplement question the first formal decision. Set go/no-go criteria for the mobilisation payment: benefits profile agreed, acceptance authority named, baseline scope approved, top risks owned. Schedule a 30-minute decision meeting before the payment date. Circulate a short pack in advance: options, cost, schedule and risk impact. Record dissent and conditions. This converts a political deadline into a transparent decision with accountable owners, rather than a schedule imposed on an undefined project.