Want all 34 templates in one PDF?
Download the complete Waypoint Toolkit — starting points you tailor with AI.
Get the Toolkit →
Reference
Templates 26–34
Templates covering the back half of the governance sequence — from tracking health and value in active delivery through portfolio governance, benefits confirmation, and continuous improvement. These are the templates that keep governance alive after the project is authorized.
One RAID log per active project. Reviewed at every governance cycle. The “Value Impact” column flags which items, if unresolved, affect the investment case — not just the delivery schedule.
Risks
| ID | Description | Probability (H/M/L) | Impact (H/M/L) | Owner | Mitigation | Value Impact? | Status |
|---|
| R-01 | | | | | | Yes / No | Open / Mitigated / Closed |
| R-02 | | | | | | | |
Assumptions — Reference the Assumptions Log from T18 — link here, reference by ID.
Issues
| ID | Description | Priority (H/M/L) | Owner | Resolution Plan | Due Date | Value Impact? | Status |
|---|
| I-01 | | | | | | Yes / No | Open / In progress / Closed |
| I-02 | | | | | | | |
Dependencies
| ID | Description | Producer | Consumer | Required By | Current Status | Risk If Slipped | Value Impact? |
|---|
| D-01 | | | | | | | Yes / No |
| D-02 | | | | | | | |
RAID Summary
| Category | Open Items | Items with Value Impact | Items Overdue |
|---|
| Risks | | | |
| Assumptions (untested or low confidence) | | | |
| Issues | | | |
| Dependencies | | | |
Value Impact Escalation Trigger: Any item flagged “Value Impact: Yes” that is unresolved within [X] days should be escalated to the governance forum as a potential investment case revision — not left in the RAID log as an open item.
For escalating a value concern about an active investment to the governance forum. One page. Forces the person escalating to do the analysis — not just surface the concern.
| Field | Response |
|---|
| Project / investment name | |
| Date of escalation | |
| Escalating party | |
| Governance forum date for review | |
What Changed — What specific event, finding, or information has changed since the original investment case was approved?
Effect on the Investment Case
| Original Assumption / Projection | Current Status | Gap |
|---|
| | | |
| | | |
Updated Value Assessment — Given what has changed, what is the current expected return on continued investment?
Options
| Option | Description | Estimated Outcome | Recommended? |
|---|
| Continue as planned | No change to scope, approach, or timeline | | ☐ |
| Adjust (describe) | | | ☐ |
| Pause and reassess | Halt work pending further information or a condition change | | ☐ |
| Stop | Discontinue the investment; document what was learned | | ☐ |
Recommendation
| Field | Response |
|---|
| Decision deadline | |
| Decision authority | |
Updated at every governance cycle. One row per cross-project dependency. Internal dependencies within a single project do not belong here — this map is for dependencies that cross project boundaries.
| Dep ID | What Is Needed | Producer Project | Consumer Project | Required By Date | Current Status | Risk Level (H/M/L) | Impact If Slipped | Owner |
|---|
| DEP-01 | | | | | On track / At risk / Delayed | | | |
| DEP-02 | | | | | | | | |
| DEP-03 | | | | | | | | |
Dependency Summary
| Status | Count |
|---|
| On track | |
| At risk (fewer than 30 days to required date; no mitigation in place) | |
| Delayed (past required date; consumer project impacted) | |
| Total active dependencies | |
At-Risk and Delayed Items — Action Required
| Dep ID | Impact on Consumer | Mitigation Options | Decision Required | Owner | Deadline |
|---|
| | | | | | |
Portfolio-level demand versus supply for critical shared resources. Updated at each governance cycle and before each new authorization decision. This is a decision support tool — not a full resource management plan.
Critical Resource Demand Summary
| Resource / Role | Active Projects Making Demand | Estimated Total Demand | Available Capacity | Utilization % | Status |
|---|
| | | | | | OK / At risk / Over capacity |
| | | | | | |
Change Saturation View
| Business Unit / Team | Projects Targeting This Group | Change Saturation Level (H/M/L) | Absorption Risk | EPMO Recommendation |
|---|
| | | | | Proceed / Monitor / Escalate / Defer new work |
| | | | | |
Capacity Conflict Register
| Conflict | Projects Affected | Resource at Issue | Recommended Resolution | Decision Authority | Resolution Deadline |
|---|
| | | | | | |
Calibration Note: This view uses estimates, not precision capacity planning. If this view shows a resource at 85%+ utilization across multiple projects, that is a signal to investigate. If it shows 120% across three projects, that is a signal to act — not to refine the estimate.
Produced at each governance cycle. Captures portfolio-level decisions: what was adjusted, what was deferred, how conflicts were resolved, and what was escalated. This document is the institutional memory of how the organization makes portfolio decisions over time.
| Field | Response |
|---|
| Governance cycle | |
| Date of session | |
| Decision authority present | |
Adjustments Made This Cycle
| Item | Adjustment Made | Reason | Effect on Portfolio | Approved By |
|---|
| | Scope reduced / timeline extended / resource reallocated / deferred / stopped | | | |
Conflicts Resolved This Cycle
| Conflict | Projects Affected | Resolution | Who Decided | Rationale |
|---|
| | | | | |
Escalations Made This Cycle
| Issue | Escalated To | Date | Resolution | Open / Closed |
|---|
| | | | | |
Cycle Observations — What did this cycle reveal about portfolio health, capacity, or dependency management?
Built during delivery. Executed after go-live. Owned by the named adoption owner. Training completion and system access are not adoption measures — adoption is the behavioral change that produces the intended benefit.
| Field | Response |
|---|
| Project / investment name | |
| Adoption owner (named individual accountable for behavioral evidence) | |
| Go-live date | |
| First measurement date | |
| Full adoption target date | |
Target Population
| Group | Size | Current Behavior (pre-investment baseline) | Expected Behavior (post-investment) |
|---|
| | | | |
| | | | |
Adoption Measures
| Measure | How Measured | Baseline | Adoption Target | Measurement Date | Actual |
|---|
| e.g., % of eligible users completing process using new system | | | | | |
| e.g., # of manual workarounds observed in process X | | | | | |
Adoption Thresholds
| Threshold | Definition |
|---|
| Full adoption | [X]% of target population using new process/system as designed |
| Partial adoption | [X–Y]% — benefit realization will be partial; escalate to governance for intervention decision |
| At-risk adoption | Below [X]% — investment return at significant risk; governance forum action required |
Connection to Benefits Register
| Benefit ID | Linked Adoption Measure | Adoption Level Required for Full Benefit |
|---|
| B-01 | | |
| B-02 | | |
Completed at the scheduled confirmation date. This is a learning document — not a performance review. The purpose is organizational intelligence about what this type of investment returns.
| Field | Response |
|---|
| Project / investment name | |
| Original authorization date | |
| Go-live date | |
| Review date | |
| Review conducted by | |
| Outcome owner present | ☐ Yes ☐ No |
Benefits Confirmation
| Benefit ID | Original Projection | Confirmed Outcome | Gap | Confidence (H/M/L) | Status |
|---|
| B-01 | | | | | Confirmed / Partial / Missed / Revised |
| B-02 | | | | | |
Adoption Confirmation
| Measure | Target | Actual | Gap | Adoption Level |
|---|
| | | | | Full / Partial / At-risk |
What Accounted for the Gap — For each material variance between projected and confirmed, describe the most likely cause. This is not a blame exercise.
What This Investment Tells the Organization About Future Decisions — What does the result tell the governance forum about how to model, assess, or govern future investments of this type? This is the highest-value output of the review — do not skip it.
CBA Accuracy Assessment
| CBA Element | Original Confidence | Actual Result | Assessment |
|---|
| Financial benefits | | | Accurate / Optimistic / Conservative |
| Financial costs | | | |
| Tangible outcomes | | | |
| Timeline assumptions | | | |
| Adoption assumptions | | | |
Run annually or at any significant governance transition. Evaluates the governance model against observable behaviors — not against whether a process or artifact exists. Having the process is not evidence the process is working.
Scoring Key: 3 = Strong evidence this is operating as designed · 2 = Partial evidence · 1 = Minimal evidence · 0 = Not yet evident
Intake and Front Door
| Observable Behavior | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Gap |
|---|
| Intake quality rate is trending upward over the past two cycles | | | |
| Submissions arrive with required fields complete without prompting | | | |
| The EPMO can describe how work enters informally and has a strategy for it | | | |
| Submitters can explain the intake process without consulting documentation | | | |
Decision Quality
| Observable Behavior | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Gap |
|---|
| Tollgate decisions are cited as precedents in subsequent governance conversations | | | |
| The governance forum can distinguish a health concern from a value concern without prompting | | | |
| Override decisions are documented with explicit rationale | | | |
| The prioritization model produces deferral of low-ranked work — not just a ranking | | | |
Accountability Structures
| Observable Behavior | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Gap |
|---|
| Outcome owners remain engaged from authorization through benefits confirmation | | | |
| Adoption owners are named and active — not placeholder assignments | | | |
| Sponsors attend authorization and milestone reviews at the specified rate | | | |
| Benefits confirmation rate is above [X]% for projects at their confirmation date | | | |
Portfolio Visibility
| Observable Behavior | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Gap |
|---|
| The governance forum asks “what does this do to the rest of the portfolio?” before authorizing new work | | | |
| Capacity conflicts are identified before they become crises | | | |
| Change saturation is assessed before new work is approved into an affected business unit | | | |
| Cross-project dependencies are tracked and visible at each governance cycle | | | |
Learning and Improvement
| Observable Behavior | Score (0–3) | Evidence | Gap |
|---|
| The EPMO can cite specific governance changes made based on retrospective findings | | | |
| Practitioners in the EPMO have retired processes that were not producing value | | | |
| The rationale behind each major governance practice is documented | | | |
| Post-investment reviews are completed and findings referenced in future CBA discussions | | | |
Maturity Score Summary
| Domain | Maximum | Actual | % |
|---|
| Intake and Front Door | 12 | | |
| Decision Quality | 12 | | |
| Accountability Structures | 12 | | |
| Portfolio Visibility | 12 | | |
| Learning and Improvement | 12 | | |
| Total | 60 | | |
| Score Range | Assessment |
|---|
| 48–60 | Strong evidence of governance maturity. Focus on sustainability and transition planning. |
| 36–47 | Governance is functioning. Specific gaps identified. Prioritize the lowest-scoring domain. |
| 24–35 | Governance is operating but inconsistently. Structural gaps need attention before declaring maturity. |
| Below 24 | Governance practices exist but are not yet consistently producing observable outcomes. Return to foundational steps. |
Living document. Updated at every retrospective. Visible to the governance forum. This document is evidence that the EPMO is managing itself with the same discipline it applies to everything else. Do not have more than two or three items In-progress simultaneously — governance change fatigue is real.
| ID | Practice Being Improved | Source | Improvement Hypothesis | Owner | Status | Target Date | Evaluation Criteria |
|---|
| PI-01 | | Retrospective / Audit / Post-Investment Review / Failure Signal | "If we change X, we expect Y because Z" | | Backlog / In progress / Evaluating / Formalized / Stopped | | |
| PI-02 | | | | | | | |
| PI-03 | | | | | | | |
Formalized Standards
Practices that have earned the standard designation — implemented consistently, tested against evidence, and confirmed effective.
| Practice | Date Formalized | Evidence Basis | Standard Documentation Location |
|---|
| | | | |
Stopped Improvements
| Practice | Date Stopped | Reason | What Was Learned |
|---|
| | | | |
Backlog Review Checklist
| Check | Confirmed |
|---|
| All In-progress items have been updated | ☐ |
| All Evaluating items have had their evidence reviewed | ☐ |
| No more than 3 items are In-progress simultaneously | ☐ |
| Every backlog item has a named owner | ☐ |
| The governance forum has reviewed the top 3 active items | ☐ |
These templates are starting points. Adapt the fields, language, and routing logic to fit the organization. The template that gets used imperfectly is more valuable than the one that is perfect and unused. The full toolkit — T1 through T34 — represents every artifact referenced in the twelve steps. An organization does not need all of them on day one. Start with the step being implemented. Build the toolkit as the governance model matures.