codexkit-project-governance-pilot

# Project Governance Pilot ## Purpose Build a practical governance pack that helps a project deliver value, make decisions fast, and surface risk early. ## When to use - A new initiative needs a charter and operating model. - A multi-team program has unclear ownership or cadence. - A troubled project needs a governance reset before more execution. ## When not to use - A team only needs a sprint backlog or daily standup summary. - The request is just a status rewrite with no governance decision. ## Inputs - project purpose, expected outcomes, and success measures - timeline, milestones, budget, and constraints - stakeholder list, sponsor, and delivery teams - current delivery model or likely model: predictive, adaptive, hybrid - known risks, dependencies, or escalation pain points ## Procedure 1. Frame the value case in business terms, not task terms. 2. Choose the working model: predictive, adaptive, hybrid, Scrum, or SAFe-heavy. 3. Define decision rights with a simple RACI and escalation path. 4. Map stakeholders by influence, dependency, and communication need. 5. Set the operating cadence: steering review, delivery review, RAID review, and executive update rhythm. 6. Define the core artifacts: charter, RAID structure, dependency view, scorecard, and status format. 7. Mark assumptions, missing inputs, and the first 30-day setup actions. ## Output - project value statement and success definition - governance model with roles and decision rights - stakeholder and communication matrix - cadence calendar and meeting purposes - RAID and dependency structure - first-action list with owners ## Definition of done - A sponsor can see how decisions get made. - Teams know which cadence and artifacts they must maintain. - Risks, dependencies, and escalation triggers are explicit. - Success is framed around value delivery, not just activity completion. ## Examples - "Set up governance for a cross-functional transformation project with product, finance, and operations teams." - "Our program is slipping because nobody owns decisions. Build a governance reset pack we can use this week." ## Quality Criteria - [ ] All dependencies and prerequisites are documented - [ ] Changes are reversible or include a rollback plan - [ ] Security implications are assessed for each configuration change - [ ] Monitoring and alerting are defined for post-deployment validation ## Verification (4C) | Check | Question | |-------|----------| | **Correctness** | Are all configurations, permissions, and dependencies accurate? | | **Completeness** | Does the setup cover dev, staging, and prod environments as needed? | | **Context-fit** | Is the solution proportional to the problem (not over/under-engineered)? | | **Consequence** | If deployed as-is to production, what is the highest-risk failure mode? | ## Edge Cases - **Target environment has pre-existing configuration** — Scan for conflicts before applying changes. Document what to preserve. - **Permissions differ between environments** — Test in staging first. Document the minimum permissions required. - **Third-party service is unavailable or deprecated** — Document fallback or alternative. Include health-check endpoints. ## Changelog - v1.0.0 — Initial release