Templates 1–16 · Waypoint

T1 — Intake Form · Step 3: Intake

Every submission enters through this form. Required fields are marked. Incomplete submissions are returned, not held. The clock on the review cycle starts when the submission is complete.

Submission Information

Field	Response
Submission date
Submitter name and role
Sponsoring executive
Routing category (Fast-track / Standard / Strategic / Emergency / Discovery)

Problem or Opportunity

What specifically is the organization trying to solve or capture? Describe the current-state problem in one paragraph. Do not describe the proposed solution here.

Expected Outcome

What will be measurably different in the operation if this work succeeds? Name a specific person, process, or metric that will change — and how.

Why Now

Is this mandatory, time-sensitive, strategic, or discretionary? What is the driver? If mandatory, name the specific statute, regulation, audit finding, or contract obligation.

Rough Sizing

Dimension	Estimate	Confidence (High / Medium / Low)
Estimated cost
Estimated timeline
Organizational impact (teams, roles, or users affected)

Known Dependencies

What does this work depend on? What other work depends on this?

What We Are Not Doing

If this is approved, what is the organization choosing not to prioritize instead? Name it explicitly.

Routing Guide — EPMO Use Only

Routing Decision	Rationale	Assigned Reviewer	Date

T2 — Cost-Benefit Analysis · Step 5: Cost-Benefit

The CBA has two required sections. Both must be complete before the proposal advances to prioritization. A financial section without a tangible section is incomplete.

Field	Detail
Proposal name
Sponsor
Outcome owner (accountable for confirming benefits materialized)
CBA prepared by
Date prepared / Last updated

Section 1: Financial Case

Baseline — Current State

Baseline Metric	Current Value	Measurement Source	Date Measured

Benefit Projections

Benefit Category	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Confidence	Source / Basis
Hard savings (costs that stop)
Cost avoidance (costs that would have grown)
Revenue protection or growth
Risk mitigation (quantified if possible)
Productivity gains (state adoption rate assumed)
Total projected benefits

Cost Projections

Cost Category	Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Notes
Implementation (labor, vendor, licensing)
Ongoing support and maintenance
Training (initial and ongoing)
Integration and technical debt created
Decommission costs (what this replaces)
Total projected costs

Summary

	Total (3-Year)
Total benefits
Total costs
Net benefit
ROI
Payback period

Section 2: Tangible Case

For each major benefit category in Section 1, complete one row below. If a financial benefit cannot be connected to a tangible outcome field, it should be treated as speculative.

Benefit Category	What Specifically Changes	Confirmed By	Within (timeframe)	Measured By

Adoption Assumption

State explicitly what adoption rate is assumed in the productivity benefit projections. What does the return look like at 50% adoption? At 75%?

T3 — Authorization Checklist · Step 8: Authorize

All seven items must be confirmed before the project is formally started. Items that cannot be confirmed push the start date, not the governance decision.

Field	Detail
Project name
Tollgate decision date
Authorization target date

The Seven Confirmations

#	Item	Confirmed?
1	Sponsor — Named, briefed, understands sponsorship requirements during delivery	☐ Yes ☐ No
2	Outcome Owner — Named person in business accountable for confirming benefit materialized; knows they are named	☐ Yes ☐ No
3	Funding — Budget confirmed and accessible in correct cost center with correct approvals	☐ Yes ☐ No
4	Delivery Ownership — Delivery lead or team identified, available, confirmed; conflicts resolved	☐ Yes ☐ No
5	Dependencies — All pre-start dependencies mapped with named owner and resolution date	☐ Yes ☐ No
6	Capacity — Portfolio capacity view updated; impact of this authorization on existing projects assessed	☐ Yes ☐ No
7	First Decision Date — Date of first consequential decision identified; required participants notified; meeting scheduled	☐ Yes ☐ No

Sign-Off

Role	Name	Signature	Date
EPMO Lead
Delivery Lead
Sponsor

T4 — Benefits Register · Steps 5, 8, 11

Opens when the CBA is built and does not close until all projected benefits have been confirmed or formally assessed. It is a living document, not a post-project artifact.

Field	Detail
Project name
Authorization date
Go-live date (actual or projected)
Benefits Register owner (EPMO contact)

Benefit Entries

ID	Description	Baseline	Projection	Confidence	Outcome Owner	Measurement Method	Confirmation Date	Status
B-01
B-02
B-03

Adoption Tracking

Benefit ID	Target Population	Behaviors Measured	Measurement Method	Measurement Date	Adoption %	Adoption Owner
B-01
B-02

T5 — Tollgate Decision Record · Step 7: Tollgate

Produced during or immediately after each governance session. Distributed within 24 hours. This is the official record of what the governance forum decided — not a meeting summary.

Field	Detail
Session date
Governance chair
Attendees
Next session date

Decision Item

Field	Detail
Proposal or project name
Recommendation entering session
Decision Outcome	☐ Proceed ☐ Proceed with Conditions ☐ Hold ☐ Return for Clarification ☐ Decline ☐ Stop
Rationale (2–3 sentences)
Sponsor
Outcome Owner
Next Action / Owner / Date

Conditions Tracking Register

Decision Date	Item	Condition	Owner	Deadline	Status

T6 — Prioritization Scoring Model · Step 6: Prioritize

Weights should reflect current planning cycle priorities. Review and validate weights at the start of each planning cycle. Scores are set before the ranked output is visible. Overrides are documented separately — never embedded in the scores.

Scoring Scale: 1 = Minimal · 3 = Moderate · 5 = Strong

Criterion	Score 1	Score 3	Score 5
Strategic Alignment	Indirect or unclear connection	Supports a named priority but not central	Directly advances a primary organizational commitment
Financial Value	Weak or speculative; low confidence CBA	Credible case, medium confidence, assumptions stated	Strong case, high confidence, evidence-based projections
Risk Reduction	Addresses a minor or unclear risk	Known operational risk, moderate impact	Significant risk: regulatory, safety, or major financial exposure
Mandatory Requirement	Discretionary; no external driver	Internally driven with some compliance dimension	Mandatory: statute, regulation, audit finding, or contract
Customer / Operational Impact	Impact limited to internal team	Moderate impact on an operational unit or customer group	High impact; affects large population or core service delivery
Delivery Readiness	Significant unknowns; team or funding unconfirmed	Mostly ready; one or two dependencies to resolve	Fully ready; sponsor engaged, team available, funding confirmed
Adoption Readiness	High saturation; receiving org at or near capacity	Moderate capacity; manageable with planning	Low saturation; receiving org ready, OCM plan in place

Scoring Sheet

Proposal	Strategic (x__)	Financial (x__)	Risk (x__)	Mandatory (x__)	Impact (x__)	Delivery (x__)	Adoption (x__)	Total	Rank

Override Documentation

Proposal	Model Rank	Adjusted Rank	Override Rationale	Authorized By	Date

T7 — Health vs. Value Review · Step 9: Health vs. Value

Two sections. Both are required at each governance cycle. Section 1 is led by the project manager. Section 2 is led by the sponsor. These are different questions and they should not be presented in the same breath.

Field	Detail
Project name
Review date
Project manager
Sponsor
Outcome Owner

Section 1: Health Review

Project Manager leads. Is the project executing as planned?

Metric	Baseline at Authorization	Current	Variance	Status (Green / Yellow / Red)
Schedule — % complete vs. planned
Budget — actuals vs. forecast
Scope — changes since authorization
Open risks above threshold
Critical path dependency status

Health summary — the one issue that, if unresolved, most threatens delivery:

Health Escalation Required? ☐ Yes ☐ No

Section 2: Value Review

Sponsor leads. Is the investment still aimed at the right outcome?

Assumption	Status (Valid / Revised / Invalidated)	Evidence	Implication for Value

Value Indicator	Status	Notes
CBA value hypothesis — still valid given current delivery trajectory?	☐ Valid ☐ Revised ☐ At Risk
Adoption readiness — are affected people being prepared?	☐ On Track ☐ Needs Attention ☐ Not Started
Outcome Owner engagement	☐ Engaged ☐ Inconsistent ☐ Disengaged
Benefits forecast vs. original CBA	☐ On Track ☐ Revised Down ☐ Uncertain
External factors — anything changed that affects value?	☐ No change ☐ Minor change ☐ Material change

Value Escalation Required? ☐ Yes ☐ No — Options: Continue as planned / Adjust scope or approach / Pause and reassess / Stop

T8 — Governance Retrospective · Step 12: Standardize

Conducted at the end of each major governance cycle — typically quarterly. Designed to complete in 90 minutes and produce two or three specific, owned action items. Not a status review. An examination of the governance model itself.

Field	Detail
Retrospective date
Facilitator
Attendees
Cycle being reviewed (date range)

Q1: What Improved This Cycle?

What Improved	Evidence	Implication (Formalize / Continue / Replicate)

Q2: What Did Not Work as Intended?

What Did Not Work	Evidence	Root Cause Hypothesis	Implication (Fix / Stop / Investigate)

Q3: What Do We Not Yet Know?

Open Question	Why It Matters	How We Will Answer It	Owner	Target Date

Governance Health Metrics

Metric	Prior Cycle	This Cycle	Trend
CBA accuracy rate
Intake quality rate
Tollgate decision stability
Sponsor engagement at authorization
Benefits confirmation rate

Improvement Actions

Practice	Category	Owner	Target Date
	☐ Formalize ☐ Develop ☐ Stop
	☐ Formalize ☐ Develop ☐ Stop

T9 — Stakeholder Interview Guide · Step 1: Listen

Use one guide per interview. Record what was said verbatim in the “Said” column and what you observed about how it was said in the “Observed” column. Do not interpret during the conversation — capture first, analyze later.

Field	Response
Name and role
Date and format (in-person / video / phone)
Duration
Prior relationship to EPMO (new / existing / none)

Core Questions

Question	Said	Observed
Walk me through how a new project gets started here.
What happens when two priorities conflict?
What gets in the way of decisions getting made?
What works here that I should not break?
What are you most worried about?
If you could change one thing about how work gets approved, what would it be?
Who else should I be talking to that I have not mentioned?

Follow-Up Notes — What came up that warrants a follow-up conversation or deeper exploration?

Synthesis Note (complete after all interviews) — What pattern did this interview confirm, complicate, or contradict?

T10 — Current-State Decision Map · Step 1: Listen

Built from interview observations and direct observation — not from existing documentation. Complete the map first, then compare it to documented processes. The gap between this map and existing documentation is where the work begins.

How Work Enters

Entry Path	Description	Who Uses It	Estimated Volume
Formal intake (if one exists)
Executive directive
IT request / help desk escalation
Sponsor relationship / side door
Regulatory mandate (arrives pre-approved)
Other informal path

Where Decisions Are Made

Decision Type	Formal Authority	Actual Decision Maker	How Communicated
New work approved
Work stopped or deferred
Priority changed mid-cycle
Budget released

Known Bypass Routes

Bypass Route	Who Uses It	Why It Exists	What Work Travels This Way

Map vs. Documentation Gap — Where does this map differ from existing process documentation?

T11 — Influence Map · Step 1: Listen

Working document — not for distribution. This map is for the practitioner’s use only. It informs every coalition-building decision before any governance change is proposed.

Name / Role	Formal Decision Authority	Scope

Informal Authority

Name / Role	Why They Have Influence	What They Can Stop	What They Can Accelerate

Coalition Requirements

Change Category	Required Support	Current Posture	What It Will Take
Intake process		☐ Supportive ☐ Neutral ☐ Resistant
Prioritization criteria		☐ Supportive ☐ Neutral ☐ Resistant
Tollgate authority		☐ Supportive ☐ Neutral ☐ Resistant
Benefits accountability		☐ Supportive ☐ Neutral ☐ Resistant

T12 — Portfolio Inventory · Step 2: Inventory

One row per active or proposed work item. Missing information is flagged, not fabricated. Complete the inventory before proposing any governance changes.

ID	Name	Description (one sentence)	Accountable Person	Intended Outcome	Category	Status	Known Dependencies	Missing Information
					Mandatory / Strategic / Operational / Discretionary	Active / Proposed / Stalled / Unclear

Inventory Summary

Category	Count	Notes
Mandatory
Strategic
Operational
Discretionary
Items with no named accountable person
Items with no stated outcome

T13 — Classification Rules · Step 2: Inventory

One page. Post where submitters can see it. Consistency in classification matters more than precision — apply the same rule to every submission.

Mandatory — The organization has no legal, regulatory, contractual, or safety discretion about whether to proceed. The governance questions are when and how, not whether. Examples: Regulatory compliance deadline, audit remediation, contractual obligation, safety mandate.

Strategic — A named senior leader can articulate, in one sentence, how this investment directly advances a current organizational priority — one that is publicly stated, funded, and in effect for this planning cycle. Examples: Platform investment supporting a published digital strategy; product development tied to a named revenue target.

Operational — Addresses a known performance gap or keeps current operations running at acceptable levels. Must have an accountable business owner and a clear current-state problem. Examples: Process improvement for a known throughput bottleneck; system upgrade to maintain support.

Discretionary — Desirable but not tied to a current operational gap or strategic priority. The organization would benefit but is not harmed by deferral. Test: “What is the consequence if we defer this for twelve months?” If the answer is significant, the category is probably wrong.

Edge Cases

Scenario	Classification Rule
Mandatory item that also has strategic value	Classify as Mandatory for governance routing
Submitted as Strategic without a named priority connection	Reclassify as Discretionary pending a stronger case
Claimed as Mandatory without compliance reference	Request written compliance citation before classifying

T14 — Missing Information Log · Step 2: Inventory

Every gap in the inventory goes here. Do not hold inventory items pending this information — flag and continue. This log is the primary argument for why intake discipline is needed: every blank field is a decision made without the information needed to make it well.

Item ID	Item Name	Missing Field	What Is Needed	Last Contact	Owner	Target Date	Status

Log Summary

Gap Category	Count
No named accountable person
No stated outcome
No confirmed funding source
No known sponsor
Cannot be classified — insufficient information
Total items with at least one gap

T15 — Intake Routing Guide · Step 3: Intake

Post this where submitters can see it. The routing decision is made at submission and confirmed by the EPMO at triage.

Routing Decision Tree

Is this submission driven by a regulatory, legal, contractual, or safety requirement?
    YES → Fast-track / Mandatory Review
    NO ↓

Is this an emergency — active failure, outage, or significant immediate risk?
    YES → Emergency Review (same-day triage; EPMO and sponsor within 24 hours)
    NO ↓

Is the estimated investment under [organization-defined threshold]?
    YES → Fast-track / Operational Review
    NO ↓

Is there a named senior sponsor who can confirm connection to a current strategic priority?
    YES → Standard Strategic Review (full CBA + prioritization)
    NO → Standard Operational Review (clarification required before proceeding)

Route	Description	Review Timeline	CBA Required	Prioritization Required
Fast-track / Mandatory	Legal / regulatory obligation	[X] business days	Abbreviated scope-and-cost only	No — proceeds subject to resourcing
Emergency	Active failure or imminent significant risk	24-hour triage; 5-day full review	No — initiate, then document	No — escalate to sponsor and EPMO lead
Standard Strategic	Full investment case; competes for portfolio resources	[X] business days	Full CBA required	Yes — enters prioritization queue
Standard Operational	Operational gap with accountable owner	[X] business days	Streamlined CBA	Yes — enters operational queue
Fast-track / Operational	Small investment, clear owner, known gap	[X] business days	Abbreviated cost-and-outcome only	No — EPMO approval sufficient

T16 — Minimum Information Standard · Step 3: Intake

These are the minimum required fields for a submission to be considered complete. Incomplete submissions are returned, not held.

Required Fields

Field	Why It Is Required
Submitter name and role	Establishes accountability for the submission
Sponsoring executive	Confirms organizational backing before review begins
Problem or opportunity description	Defines what is being solved — without this, no review is possible
Expected outcome	States what changes — required for prioritization and CBA
Reason for timing (why now)	Needed to assess urgency and routing
Rough sizing estimate	Required to route correctly and assess capacity impact

Recommended Fields

Field	Why It Is Recommended
Known dependencies	Enables early dependency risk identification
What is out of scope	Reduces clarification cycles
Prior attempts to address this problem	Informs solution design and avoids redundant work

Return Process: Incomplete submissions are returned to the submitter with a specific list of missing fields. The EPMO does not attempt to fill gaps on the submitter’s behalf. The review timeline starts when the complete submission is received. A submission returned twice with the same missing fields is escalated to the sponsoring executive.