Skip to content

Project Initiative Package (PIP) - “We’re Actually Doing This”

1. What Was Going On

By this point, nobody was arguing about the problem anymore.

The PPE, PEV, PAB, POM, and OE had done their jobs. The risk was real, the scope was clear, and the trade-offs were visible.

What remained was the most uncomfortable step of all:

Someone had to say yes.

Up until now, every artifact allowed for plausible deniability. The PIP removes that luxury. This is where leadership either commits-or quietly proves the previous work was theatre.

2. The Conversation That Triggered This Step

The discussion was short and unusually focused.

No one asked for more analysis. No one asked for alternative approaches. No one suggested a workshop.

Instead, the question on the table was blunt:

“Which outcomes are we approving, and which ones are we explicitly not doing right now?”

That question forced the creation of the PIP.

3. The Artifact

Below is the Project Initiative Package as it was recorded.

No hedging. No optimism. Just a clear commitment.

# Project Initiative Package (PIP)

## Initiative Name
Season Scoring Risk Reduction

## Summary
This initiative reduces operational risk by removing the single-person dependency in the weekly season scoring process. It authorizes additional users to run scoring, introduces auditability, and ensures controlled publishing of results. Optional review and notification enhancements are identified but sequenced separately.

---

## Stage 2 Artifacts Included
- POM (Process Outcome Map)
- OE (Outcome Estimates)
- Supplemental operational notes

---

## Phase 1 Scope (Approved Outcomes)
- Outcome 1: Authorized scoring execution with auditability
- Outcome 2: Pre-publish review confidence
- Outcome 3: Controlled publishing with audit trail

Deferred Outcomes:
- Outcome 4: Stakeholder notification and confirmation

---

## Estimated Delivery Window
6–8 weeks

---

## Risks & Dependencies
- Continued reliance on existing access models until authorization rules are defined
- Availability of stakeholders for verification and notification workflows

---

## Go/No-Go Decision
**Approved**

**Approver:** Director of Operations
**Date:** 2025-01-25

4. What Almost Went Wrong

Several well-meaning attempts were made to avoid commitment.

  • “Can we just approve the idea and figure out scope later?”
  • “What if we approve everything but only promise some of it?”
  • “Do we really need to call out deferred outcomes explicitly?”

All of these were rejected.

The entire point of the PIP is to make trade-offs visible and irreversible.

5. The Decision

Decision Question Is this initiative sufficiently defined, scoped, and justified to authorize design work?

Decision Made Proceed.

Why This Was Good Enough The PIP:

  • bundled all prior decisions into a single record
  • made approval explicit
  • documented what would not be delivered in Phase 1

Perfection was not required. Commitment was.

6. What This Unlocked (And What It Didn’t)

Now Allowed

  • Begin Stage 3 (Strategic Domain Design)
  • Write PRDs for approved outcomes
  • Allocate design and delivery capacity

Still Not Allowed

  • Writing code
  • Selecting vendors or tools
  • Expanding scope without approval

Those temptations return quickly.

7. Why This Step Matters

This is where strategy becomes real.

Without the PIP, teams drift forward on implied approval and unwritten assumptions. When things go wrong, nobody remembers who said yes-or what they said yes to.

The PIP prevents that.

It creates a single, durable record of intent that survives memory, turnover, and revisionist history.

8. Sarcastic Footnote

Once approved, several people immediately asked when development would start.

They were gently reminded that thinking had only just finished.