Templates 17–25 · Waypoint

T17 — Problem Statement Template · Step 4: Clarify

One page maximum. If this cannot be described in one page, the problem is not yet understood clearly enough. Return to the submitter for further clarification before proceeding to the CBA.

Field	Response
Proposal name
Date
Author
Version

The Problem — What is happening today? Describe in operational terms — what is occurring, not what should happen instead.

Who Is Affected and How — Which people, teams, or processes are experiencing this problem? What does it cost them in time, quality, risk, or money?

Consequence of Not Acting — What happens if this problem is not addressed? Be specific about the risk, cost, or impact of inaction.

How We Know This Is Happening — What evidence confirms this problem is real — data, direct observation, or documented incident?

What This Problem Is Not — What related issues are not being addressed here? What is explicitly out of scope?

Problem Statement Review Checklist

Check	Confirmed
The problem is described in operational terms, not as a proposed solution	☐
At least one piece of confirming evidence is cited	☐
A named person in the business can confirm this description is accurate	☐
The consequence of inaction is stated specifically	☐
The problem as stated is within the organization’s authority to address	☐

T18 — Assumptions Log · Step 4: Clarify

Starts at clarification. Travels with the proposal through CBA, prioritization, tollgate, and delivery. Updated when assumptions are confirmed, revised, or invalidated. Never closed until benefits are confirmed.

ID	Assumption	Confidence (H/M/L)	Evidence or Reasoning	What Would Invalidate It	Test Method	Owner	Status	Last Updated
A-01							Untested / Confirmed / Revised / Invalidated
A-02
A-03

Escalation Trigger: If three or more High-confidence assumptions become Medium, or any assumption is Invalidated, the investment case should be re-evaluated at the tollgate level — not silently updated and continued.

T19 — Outcome Definition Worksheet · Step 4: Clarify

The outcome defined here becomes the hypothesis the CBA tests, the target the benefits register tracks, and the measure the governance forum confirms after delivery. Define it before the CBA is built, not from the CBA output.

Field	Response
Proposal name
Outcome owner (accountable for confirming this outcome materialized)
Date

Primary Outcome — What will be measurably different after this investment, compared to today? Describe the operational change — not the deliverable.

Who Experiences the Change — Which team, process, or user population will see this difference?

How It Will Be Measured

Measure	Current Baseline	Expected State Post-Investment	Confirmation Date	Data Source

What Success Looks Like at 90 Days — What specific thing should have changed 90 days after go-live?

What Success Looks Like at 12 Months — What should be measurably different one year after the investment closes?

Outcome Review Checklist

Check	Confirmed
The outcome describes a change in how the organization operates — not a deliverable produced	☐
A named person is accountable for confirming the outcome materialized	☐
At least one quantifiable measure is defined with a current baseline	☐
A specific confirmation date is set	☐
The outcome owner has reviewed and agreed to this definition	☐

T20 — Benefit Owner Register · Step 5: Cost-Benefit

Companion to the CBA. One row per projected benefit. This document is the source record for Step 11 follow-up. The people named here are the ones the EPMO will contact at the confirmation date.

Benefit ID	Description	CBA Category	Projected Value	Confidence	Outcome Owner	Measurement Method	Data Source	Baseline	Confirmation Date	Status
B-01										Not started / In delivery / Confirmed / Missed / Revised
B-02

Engagement Record

Benefit ID	Date	Method	Who Was Present	Status Update	Next Action
B-01

Register Integrity Checks

Check	At CBA	At Authorization	At Go-live
Every projected financial benefit has a row in this register	☐	☐	☐
Every row has a named, reachable outcome owner	☐	☐	☐
Every row has a specific confirmation date	☐	☐	☐
Every confirmation date is on the EPMO governance calendar	☐	☐	☐

T21 — Weighting Guidance · Step 6: Prioritize

Companion to the Prioritization Scoring Model. Documents why the weights are set the way they are, when they were last reviewed, and what the process is for changing them.

Criterion	Current Weight	Rationale	Cycle Set
Strategic Alignment
Financial Value
Risk Reduction
Mandatory Requirement
Customer / Operational Impact
Delivery Readiness
Adoption Readiness
Total	100%

Weight Change Process: Weight changes require (1) documented rationale, (2) governance forum review, (3) approval by the EPMO lead and at least one executive sponsor, and (4) communication to all active proposal owners who may be affected by a reranking. Weight changes do not apply retroactively to proposals already approved in the current cycle.

What the Weights Are Not: Weights are not a formula that removes judgment. A scoring model narrows the range of defensible outcomes; it does not eliminate the governance forum’s responsibility to make decisions when the model produces a result that does not match organizational judgment. When the model and the judgment diverge, document the divergence as an override with explicit rationale — do not silently resolve it in the model’s favor.

T22 — Prioritization Tradeoff Summary · Step 6: Prioritize

Produced at the close of each prioritization cycle. One document per cycle. This is the governance forum’s standing record of what was decided and why.

Field	Response
Cycle period (e.g., Q3 FY26)
Date of prioritization session
Participants
Total proposals reviewed
Approved
Deferred
Declined / stopped

Approved Items

Rank	Item Name	Score	Category	Notes

Deferred Items

Item Name	Score	Reason for Deferral	Expected Re-Entry Cycle	Owner

Declined Items

Item Name	Score	Reason for Decline	Communicated To	Date

Overrides

Item Name	Model Outcome	Actual Outcome	Rationale	Approved By

Cycle Notes — What did this cycle reveal about the scoring model, the portfolio, or the prioritization process that should inform the next cycle?

T23 — Decision Agenda · Step 7: Tollgate

Distributed to governance forum members at least [X] business days before the session. The agenda signals that the meeting’s purpose is decisions, not presentations.

Field	Response
Date and time
Location / link
Facilitator
Decision authority confirmed present
Quorum requirement
Total scheduled time

Standing Items (always first)

Item	Owner	Time
Conditions Tracking Register — status of all open conditions from prior sessions	EPMO
Items held from prior session — decisions deferred that require resolution today	EPMO

Decision Items

#	Item Name	Type	Proposed Outcome	Pre-Read Distributed	Discussion Time	Decision Authority
1		New / Milestone / Exception	Proceed / Proceed with Conditions / Return / Defer / Stop	☐
2				☐

Pre-Read Requirements: Every decision item requires a pre-read distributed before the session. The governance forum does not use meeting time to present information that could have been read in advance. Meeting time is for questions, deliberation, and decision. Standard pre-read per item: Proposal summary (one page maximum), CBA summary, open risks above threshold, recommended outcome with rationale.

Facilitation Notes: Open each item with the recommended outcome — not with a project overview. Time-box discussion: when the conversation is circular, call it and decide. The meeting ends when all decision items are recorded, not when the clock runs out.

T24 — Sponsor Briefing Template · Step 8: Authorize

One page. Completed by the EPMO. Delivered to the active sponsor before work begins. Purpose: ensure the sponsor knows what was approved, what they committed to, and what the first thirty days require of them.

Field	Response
Project / investment name
Approved scope (one paragraph — exactly what was authorized)
Authorization date
Authorized budget
Projected timeline

What the Organization Committed To — The outcome statement from Step 4. This is what the benefits register will confirm.

What Sponsorship Requires

Responsibility	Frequency	Escalation Path
Review health vs. value status updates	Per governance cycle	Flag concerns to EPMO if missing
Attend milestone tollgate reviews	Per schedule	Contact EPMO lead if conflict arises
Resolve scope and priority conflicts beyond delivery team authority	As needed	Direct access to EPMO and delivery lead
Confirm outcome owner engagement through delivery	Quarterly	EPMO will flag if engagement drops
Confirm benefit at the scheduled confirmation date	At confirmation date	EPMO will send calendar invite and measurement request

First Thirty Days

Action	Owner	Date
Delivery team kickoff
Dependency confirmations
First health vs. value check-in
Sponsor / EPMO standing cadence established

Key Contacts

Role	Name	Contact
EPMO lead
Delivery lead
Outcome owner
Primary dependency owner (if applicable)

T25 — Capacity Impact Summary · Step 8: Authorize

Produced at authorization. Shows the governance forum the portfolio-level effect of this approval before the decision is made. Do not authorize new work without running this snapshot first.

Before This Authorization

Resource / Team	Current Demand	Available Capacity	Utilization %

After This Authorization

Resource / Team	Added Demand (this project)	New Total Demand	New Utilization %	Status
				OK / At risk / Over capacity

Conflicts Created

Resource / Team	Conflict Description	Projects Affected	Recommended Resolution	Owner	Deadline

Authorization Recommendation
☐ No conflicts — proceed to authorization
☐ Resolvable conflicts — proceed with the following conditions:
☐ Unresolvable conflicts — defer until:

Authorization should not proceed until capacity conflicts are resolved or explicitly accepted by the governance forum with documented rationale.