The trigger

Organisations typically engage ProjectPhD at a specific governance moment — not as an open-ended exercise. Common triggers include:

• A stage-gate funding decision where independent assurance is required
• A board or audit committee request for an independent view of delivery risk
• A leadership change — a new Sponsor or CIO inheriting a program and needing a baseline
• A vendor dispute where accountability, scope, or milestone completion is contested
• A suspicion that delivery reporting does not reflect reality

The diagnostic is positioned as routine governance, not crisis response. Ordering is typically initiated by the Sponsor, CIO, or Head of Internal Audit, with delivery set to eyes-only by default. The process is designed to be embedded at stage gates as a standard control — not reserved for programs already in trouble.

The diagnostic process

The ordering executive selects the program and confirms respondents, which typically include: the Sponsor themselves, the Program Manager and Program team, Steering Committee members, and any key stakeholders or customers involved in the program.

Each respondent completes a structured diagnostic independently, and attests to their answers. There is no group session and no opportunity for inputs to be coordinated.

Responses are scored against the proprietary dataset of 2,000+ historical diagnostics with outcome data. The program is matched to peer cohorts by size, sector, category, technology, and complexity. Statistical regression identifies which control dimensions correlate most strongly with outcomes in the matched cohort.

Within 72 hours, the ordering executive receives will then receive both a summary board-level governance memo, and more detailed assurance report.

What you receive

Governance Decision Memo — A concise, single-page decision artefact summarising the recommended action, confidence level, and conditions. Designed to be attached to board papers as a standalone governance record.

Risk & Assurance Report — Risk rating with confidence basis, benchmark percentile, top risk drivers, and the Alignment Index showing where stakeholder views diverge across dimensions. Includes a business readiness and adoption risk assessment.

Conditions-to-proceed and 90-day action plan — Forward-looking governance actions drawn from the Recommendations Library, with owners and timeframes. Highest-lift interventions prioritised by what correlated with better outcomes in matched cohorts.

Alignment Risk Index — Where the Sponsor rates scope as defined and the Program Director rates it as contested, or where the Program Team indicate the requirements are clear but Stakeholders indicate that they’re not, those divergences are documented as a governance signal, as being additional risk areas for investigation.

What happens after

Decision framework. The Assurance Report concludes with a governance recommendation: proceed with current controls, step up governance discipline, or commission full assurance. The recommendation is grounded in how comparable programs performed at similar control health levels — it is a data-informed governance signal, not a subjective opinion.

Escalation pathways. If the diagnostic signals major potential risks to program delivery, there is a clear escalation pathway to a more detailed Assurance Review where warranted – including detailed Evidence Review of project artifacts for a stronger evidentiary basis, and/or Face-to-Face interviews and briefings with Program Team members and Sponsor to review the specific risk and findings in more detail. Where procurement rules require the Assurance Review be provided by a Panel Supplier, we provide a Panel RFP Pack to ensure the quality and cost of the review is tightly managed.

Re-Check at 90 days. A follow-up assessment verifying whether conditions-to-proceed were met and controls have improved. Closes the loop on the original Assurance Report. Delivered within 48 hours.