There is a body of knowledge in this industry that decides whether projects succeed or fail, and most of the world has never been taught it. It isn't complicated. There's no certification that guards it. It simply grew up inside a small number of companies - mostly the major oil and gas operators - because those companies were spending hundreds of millions on single decisions and could not afford to get them wrong. They learned, expensively, that the decisive part of a project is not how well you build it. It's how well you set it up before you commit the money. So they built a system for that. And then, quietly, it stayed inside those buildings. What the secret actually is Stripped of the jargon, it's this: Before you choose a solution, you agree what problem you're solving and what a good outcome looks like. Then you look at real alternatives. Then you commit money in phases - a bit at a time - and at each decision gate someone with authority genuinely decides whether to keep going. That's it. That's the whole thing. The pieces have names. Framing is agreeing the problem and what success looks like before anyone picks an answer. A gate is a point where a person with authority decides: continue, stop, or go back and do more work. Front-end loading is simply the work you do before you commit and the research is consistent that projects with a well-defined front end significantly outperform those that rushed into execution. Simple ideas. Enormously difficult to do honestly. And almost never taught outside the companies that invented them. Who was never given it This is where it gets interesting. In my experience working across the UK, Australia and the US and teaching people from many more countries than that - this discipline is not evenly distributed at all. The major operators have it, deeply. Their supply chains half-have it. And beyond that, it thins out fast. I've been genuinely surprised how often I meet capable, senior people in Europe and parts of Asia running very large projects with no structured front end at all. Not because they're less able- but because nobody ever handed it to them. The knowledge never travelled. Newer companies have it least of all. Renewables developers, technology-driven energy businesses, infrastructure firms that grew quickly - they often have brilliant commercial people and no institutional system for making a project decision. Sometimes an ex-major employee arrives carrying it in their head, and it lives entirely in that one person until they leave. And local and regional government may be furthest from it of anyone, while managing some of the most consequential projects there are. Public money, public consequences, and almost no exposure to the discipline that the private sector built precisely because these decisions are so expensive to get wrong. The projects that fail quietly Here's the part that keeps this hidden. Badly framed projects rarely fail loudly. They fail in ways that get explained by something else. A renewables project chooses a site and technology because a grant window was closing. The grant becomes uncertain. The community pushes back. The project collapses and it is written up as a political problem, or a regulatory problem, or bad luck. It wasn't. A project that exists because money was available, rather than because value was defined, has no answer when either one moves. It was doomed from the beginning. But nothing in the post-mortem will say so. A city or region commits to a major project. The estimate multiplies, then multiplies again, and eventually the whole thing is cancelled. The story afterwards is about politics or contractors. A transformation programme gets a project manager, a charter, a plan and a budget and fourteen months later nobody is using the thing that was built. It gets called an adoption problem. In every one of these, the same thing happened at the start, and in none of them is it named. So the lesson never gets learned, and the next project makes the same mistake. That's why I call it a secret. Not because anybody is hiding it but because the failures that would teach it are attributed to something else. The words exist but the practice often doesn't. Here's the trap that catches the organizations who think they already have this. Most large organizations now have the vocabulary. There are phases. There are gates. There's a business case template, a gate paper format, an assurance function, a review board with a calendar. On paper it looks exactly like good practice. But the words can be present while the practice is absent. And the difference shows up in what actually happens in the room: A real gate asks: should we continue? A hollow gate asks: is the paperwork finished? Those are completely different questions, and only one of them protects money. A real business case compares options. A hollow one justifies the option already chosen. If there was one preferred answer and two options nobody expected to select, no decision was made - a preference was approved. Real assurance challenges whether the project makes sense. Hollow assurance checks that the documents are consistent with each other. You can quality-check an answer very thoroughly without ever examining the question. Real framing happens before a solution is named. Hollow framing is written afterwards, to explain the solution somebody already chose. If you want to know which version your organization has, answer this: when did a gate last stop a project? If the answer is "it hasn't," you don't have a gate system. You have a funding schedule with meetings attached. Three symptoms worth checking for Nobody can stop it. By the second or third gate there's a team, a budget line, a contractor, a number in the corporate plan, and a sponsor whose reputation is attached. Stopping has become a career event rather than a decision. Nobody actually decided. Ask when the technology was chosen, or the site, and you get a date range rather than a date. It emerged from an early study and was never revisited. Those are decisions by drift, and they are extremely expensive to undo later. Alignment came too late. Operations, the functions, the regulator, the community - brought in during framing, they shape the project. Brought in at commitment, they renegotiate it. Late alignment can easily turn into a delayed argument at the worst possible price. Why local government needs this most Public projects have every ingredient that makes framing essential, and almost none of the discipline. The solution is frequently named before the problem is defined - it arrives as a commitment, a manifesto item, or a funding opportunity that has to be used before it expires. Alternatives are rarely examined seriously, because a preferred answer already exists in public. Consultation happens after the design, which means citizens are informed rather than involved. And the decision cycle is political, so slowing down at the start to get it right carries a visible cost while the eventual overrun arrives after someone else is in the chair. The result is a category of project that everyone in the region can see coming and nobody can stop. None of this requires a bigger budget to fix. It requires four questions asked early, in public, and answered honestly: What problem are we solving? What does success look like? What else could we do? What are we assuming? What this actually gives you Four things, in ascending order of value. Cheaper failure. The point of a strong front end isn't only to improve good projects. It's to stop bad ones early, when stopping costs a study instead of a sanction. An organization that kills three weak projects at the first gate has created more value that year than most efficiency programmes. Real choice. Framing forces genuine alternatives to exist before a preference becomes a commitment. Alignment. People who helped shape a decision defend it. People who were informed of it renegotiate it (or resist it). A decision you can defend. Criteria, options, assumptions, rationale, owner, date. Written down. That's what makes a decision auditable, teachable, and reversible on new evidence rather than on politics. The part that's genuinely hard The Decision Gate Process looks like a process. It's really a set of behaviours that actually work: Stop and go back become respectable answers. Killing a weak project is recognised as protecting value, not as failure. Raising an uncomfortable assumption is treated as a contribution rather than a career risk. Challenge from a review board is understood as protecting the project, not catching people out. Teams get credit for the quality of their thinking, not only for visible momentum. And decisions leave a trail. You can install the process in a month. The behaviours take a cycle of real projects and someone competent holding the line. That's the difference between an organization that has gates and an organization that makes decisions. And it's the only real secret here: the knowledge isn't hard to find, it's hard to practise - which is why so few organizations do, and why the ones that do are so consistently hard to beat. I teach this as the Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing - the front-end operating system the best owner organizations in oil and gas run on, taught by someone who has worked both sides: major EPC contractors and owner organizations. → academy.wilson.biz #epc #capitalprojects #decisiongateprocess #opportunityframing

This one is for EPC contractors and for everyone in the delivery supply chain who bids against an owner's scope: EPCM, engineering houses, construction and fabrication contractors, specialist packages. I've spent my career on both sides of this table - with major EPC contractors and with owner organizations in oil and gas. That's the only reason I feel able to say what follows. Think about the last project that went badly for you. Not the one where you made a mistake - the one where everyone was competent, the engineering was sound, the site team was strong, procurement performed, and the schedule logic was right. And it still bled. Change orders from month four that never really stopped, your team was technically correct about every one of them, and it made no difference to the relationship. Here's the pattern worth sitting with: most of what determined that outcome had already happened before the tender documents ever reached your bid team. What EPC contractors actually inherit When a project comes to market, you receive a scope. What you do not receive and what nobody puts a number on - is the quality of thinking that produced it. Was the problem ever properly defined, or did a solution get named early and everything since has been elaboration? Were real alternatives compared, or was one option ratified and two straw men attached to make it look like a choice? Which of the parameters in that scope are genuinely fixed, and which are assumptions somebody wrote down once and nobody has revisited since? Are the stakeholders who can stop this project actually aligned - the regulator, the community, the operations group who has to run it or have they simply been informed? As a contractor you price the scope. But you carry the risk of the thinking behind the scope. On a lump-sum contract against an immature front end, that gap is where EPC margin goes to die. Not through incompetence - through inheriting an owner's unresolved questions and being contractually obliged to resolve them at your own cost. The industry data has been consistent for decades: projects with a well-defined front end significantly outperform those that rushed into execution (source: IPA) The part nobody says out loud Here is the uncomfortable truth in the EPC business. Framing and project governance are the owner's responsibility. The blame is not distributed the same way. I've watched this from the owner's side of the table, and I've watched it from the contractor's side. The view is completely different, and only one of those seats gets to write the history. When a badly framed project fails, the owner's organization has a hundred explanations available to it - market conditions, regulatory delay, community opposition, scope evolution, and very often, contractor performance. Those explanations get written into lessons-learned and repeated in the next tender's risk section. You have one thing: your delivery record. And the record does not distinguish between "the contractor executed badly" and "the contractor executed a project that should never have been sanctioned in that form." So your EPC team can do the work perfectly and still lose the credibility or the follow-on contract. Still find that when that owner's project team moves to another company, they carry a story about your firm that isn't true and that you were never in a position to prevent. That is why checking the quality of thinking at the start is not the owner's problem to solve on your behalf. For a contractor, it is a commercial and reputational necessity, regardless of who is contractually responsible for it. The questions your bid team should ask before you tender EPC qualification processes are usually excellent at what they cover: capability, capacity, risk allocation, contract terms, commercial position, competition. Notice what's usually absent - an assessment of how well the owner has actually made their decisions. You assess the contract but you rarely assess the decision-making that produced it, even though that's the largest uncontrolled variable in your exposure. You can close that gap by asking questions in those six areas: Problem and value. Can they state the problem this project solves without describing the solution? What are the value drivers, and what does success look like in measurable terms? If nobody can answer this, no option can be properly evaluated -including your bid. Alternatives and decision history. What alternatives were genuinely evaluated? Can they show the options study? When was the concept selected, by whom, and against what criteria? Givens versus assumptions. Which parameters are decided, and which are assumptions? Is there a live assumptions register, and who owns it? Almost every failed project contains an assumption that was quietly promoted to a fact and written into the basis of design. Stakeholders and consents. Which stakeholders have formally aligned, and which have merely been briefed? What is the actual status of permits, land, interconnection and community agreement as opposed to the planned status? Decision authority and readiness. Who can change what, and how quickly? What still has to be decided before / during execution, and is there a mechanism to decide it at the speed your schedule assumes? Interfaces and boundaries. What's in and what's out and does the sponsor give the same answer as the owner's delivery lead when you ask them separately? They very often don't, and that disagreement costs nothing to surface at tender and a fortune at month fourteen. You will not always get answers. The quality of the non-answer is the information. An owner who can produce a decision record, a documented options comparison and a live assumptions register is an owner whose scope will largely hold. An owner who becomes uncomfortable at these questions has just shown your bid team exactly where the change orders will come from and you can price it, allocate it, or decline to bid. How a contractor covers itself Asking is half of it. Put the questions in writing. Formal clarification requests during tender create a dated record of what your contractor team asked and what the owner told you. This costs nothing at the time and is decisive later. Qualify your bid against the assumptions you had to make. Not buried in an appendix - stated plainly, with the commercial consequence attached. "We have assumed X. If X is not correct, the impact is Y." Hand over an assumptions register at kickoff and get it jointly owned. The most valuable governance artefact on an EPC contract is a live document both parties have signed up to, showing what each side is relying on. Ask for the owner's decision record. Criteria, options, rationale, owner, date. Owners with mature systems have one and will share it. Owners without one have told you something important. Use early warning properly. Flag the decision that hasn't been made, not just the delay it will cause. None of this makes a contractor adversarial. Done well, it makes you the EPC firm that is visibly trying to protect the project rather than position for a claim. Good owners recognise the difference immediately, and it is one of the fastest ways to earn a seat in the conversation earlier next time. What the best owners actually do The industries that could least afford to get this wrong - oil and gas, mining, major infrastructure - spent decades and enormous sums building a front-end operating system. It works, and it has largely stayed inside those organizations. Not secret in any conspiratorial sense; simply internal know-how that rarely leaves the building, and was never packaged for the contractors who have to live with the consequences. What the disciplined owners do differently is not complicated: They frame the opportunity before naming a solution. They define value and success measures before comparing options. They keep givens and assumptions explicitly separated, and revisit them. They evaluate genuine alternatives rather than ratifying a preference. They sequence the decisions first and let the work organise around them. They bring stakeholders in during framing rather than at commitment. They treat stop and recycle as legitimate gate outcomes. And they leave a decision trail - criteria, rationale, owner, date. Knowing what that looks like is what lets an experienced contractor recognise, in a single tender meeting, which kind of owner they're dealing with. Two ways EPC contractors can use this Get upstream. Every EPC says it wants to move up the value chain - early contractor involvement, FEED, front-end services, partner rather than vendor. The obstacle is rarely willingness. It's arriving at the owner's table without a language for what you'd contribute before a scope exists. Opportunity framing and the Decision Gate Process are that language: how to have a credible conversation about problem definition, value drivers, boundaries, alternatives and decision sequencing with a client who hasn't finished thinking. The contractor who helps frame the opportunity is not competing on rate and the scope you helped define is a scope you can actually deliver. Then use it on your own projects. An EPC contractor is an owner too. New fabrication capacity, yard and facility investment, digital and ERP programmes, joint ventures, acquisitions, new service lines. Every one of those is a front-end decision made by your own organization, usually under exactly the pressures you recognise in your clients. It's also the safest place to build the capability - because when your teams have run this discipline on your own capital, the conversation with an owner stops being a sales pitch and starts being experience. The honest version There's a version of the contracting business where you become excellent at claims. Many EPC firms have. It works, in the narrow sense that you recover the money. But the claim you won still lost you the client. And the reason those claims exist is almost never execution. It's that your contractor team was handed a project that was never properly framed, and the contract made its unresolved questions your problem - while the story afterwards made them your fault. You can keep pricing that risk quietly. Or your bid teams can learn to read it before you tender, document what they found, and eventually fix it for the owners worth keeping. I teach this as the Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing - the front-end operating system the best owner organizations in oil and gas run on, taught by someone who has worked both sides: major EPC contractors and owner organizations. It's built for people who want to read a project's framing before they commit to it and eventually to be the ones shaping it. → academy.wilson.biz #epc #capitalprojects #decisiongateprocess #opportunityframing

source: canva There is a sentence I hear from change professionals all the time: "I could see it coming. But by the time they brought me in, the decision had already been made." The new system had been selected. The operating model had been designed. The restructure had been approved. The budget had been committed. And now the change team was being asked to get everyone on board. Sound familiar? For years we've talked about transformation failure as an adoption problem. People resisted. Leaders didn't communicate enough. Managers weren't engaged. Training came too late. The organization wasn't ready. All of those things matter. But I think we're missing something that happens much earlier. Sometimes what looks like resistance to change is actually a problem with how the change was defined in the first place. We know change management works This isn't an argument against change management, quite the opposite. Prosci's Best Practices in Change Management research reports that 88% of initiatives with excellent change management met or exceeded their objectives, compared with just 13% of those with poor change management. That's an enormous difference, and it's why the discipline exists. And yet the results across our industry stay stubbornly uneven. You'll often see the claim that 70% of transformations fail - but you don't need a contested statistic to recognise the pattern. Almost everyone reading this can name a change programme that was well run, competently executed, properly resourced and still didn't deliver what it promised. So perhaps we need to ask a different question. What happened before the change management process began? Because adoption cannot rescue a poorly framed decision. I watched a programme where a project manager was appointed to get it done, and started - correctly, by their training - with the charter. Nobody checked whether the problem was clear, what value looked like, or whether alternatives had genuinely been examined. The functions who would have to live with the result were consulted after the shape was already fixed, which is another way of saying they were informed. Silos deepened, because each group was defending a decision it had never been part of. Fourteen months later it was described as an adoption problem. It wasn't. It was a framing problem that had finally become visible. The change profession is already moving upstream I went through 15 change and transformation roles advertised in the last week. Alongside the familiar communications, training and resistance-management requirements, here is what organizations are now asking change professionals to do: shape governance frameworks and portfolio strategies develop transformation roadmaps build compelling business cases create ideation frameworks and secure executive buy-in lead through ambiguity without direct authority align complex stakeholder networks evaluate solutions against business needs identify risks and opportunities measure outcomes and value realization That is a very different job. We are asking change and transformation professionals to operate before, during and after the decision. And I think that's exactly where the profession should be going! But there's a problem. Many practitioners have been given responsibility further upstream without being given a structured process for working there. We have excellent tools for helping people move through change. What we need alongside them are tools for helping organizations decide what change they should make in the first place. That's where opportunity framing comes in. Before you manage the change, frame the opportunity Imagine you're told: "We're implementing a new CRM." Most teams immediately start moving. Who is impacted? Who are the sponsors? What's the communication plan? What's the training strategy? Where will resistance come from? All useful questions. But I would start somewhere else. Why are we implementing a CRM? And I don't mean the answer in the business case. I mean: what is actually happening in the business that we are trying to change? Maybe commercial teams don't have a shared view of customers. Maybe renewals are being lost. Maybe data quality is poor. Maybe teams are maintaining their own spreadsheets because they don't trust the existing system. Suddenly "we need a new CRM" becomes "how might we create a reliable, shared view of our customers that helps commercial teams improve retention?" Those are not the same opportunity. The first has already decided the answer. The second creates room for a decision. And that room is where enormous amounts of value are won or lost. This is the conversation I want change professionals in You may be thinking: I don't get to choose when I'm brought in. That's fair - usually you don't. But these questions work just as well when you're late. Asking them out loud, in front of a sponsor, is exactly how people discover you can do this work. It's the most reliable route I know to being invited earlier next time. So before the solution is chosen or as soon as you arrive, whenever that is ask: What problem or opportunity are we actually solving? Not the symptom. Not the requested system. Not the solution somebody put into the budget eighteen months ago. What does success look like? What would actually be different in the organization if this worked? How would we measure it? What creates value here? Speed? Cost? Customer experience? Reliability? Employee experience? Risk reduction? Capability? Because without agreeing what matters, how can we compare solutions? What are we treating as facts that are actually assumptions? "We have to implement this system." "The regulator requires it." "Operations won't accept that." "We need it by January." "We can't change the process." Maybe. But which of those are genuine givens, and which have simply gone unchallenged? What alternatives have we genuinely considered? If there is one preferred option and two options nobody seriously expects to select, that isn't decision-making. Who needs to be in the room while there are still meaningful choices to make? This may be the biggest one. We talk endlessly about stakeholder engagement. But engagement after the important decisions have been made is very different from participation while those decisions are still being shaped. By then you're often not asking "what do you think?" You're asking "how can we get you comfortable with what we've already decided?" People can tell the difference. Capital projects learned this lesson a long time ago I came to this from the world of major capital projects, in the oil and gas. When the decision you're making may commit hundreds of millions - sometimes billions - you cannot simply choose a solution and hope execution sorts it out. Top oil and gas companies developed structured front-end processes precisely because the cost of getting the early decisions wrong is enormous. You frame the opportunity. You define value. You surface assumptions. You explore alternatives. You sequence decisions. You bring the right stakeholders into the conversation. You test the maturity of the opportunity. And only then do you progressively commit more capital. There are decision gates for a reason. The purpose of a gate isn't bureaucracy. It's to ask one question: do we know enough to make the next commitment? I increasingly believe change and transformation professionals need this capability too. Not instead of change management. Before it. Because your job is changing If your role now asks you to shape governance, influence investment decisions, develop business cases, evaluate solutions, build roadmaps and demonstrate value realization, then you are no longer only managing the people side of somebody else's decision. You are participating in the decision itself. That's a much more powerful position. But it requires a different set of tools. You need to know how to take something messy and ambiguous and structure it. How to separate a given from an assumption. How to move a team from "we need X" to "how might we achieve Y?" How to define success before selecting a solution. How to create meaningful alternatives. How to structure decisions and decision gates. How to bring stakeholders together before positions become entrenched. And how to build a roadmap around the decisions that matter - not simply the activities that need to happen. That's not traditional change management. But I believe it is becoming part of the job. Try four questions on your next transformation The next time someone hands you a programme where the solution appears to have already been decided, don't immediately start with the change plan. Ask: What problem are we actually solving? How will we know we've created value? What alternatives did we genuinely consider? What are we currently treating as a fact that might actually be an assumption? Then watch the conversation. You may discover that the organization isn't ready for a change plan yet. It still has a decision to make. And perhaps that's exactly where you should be involved. This is what I teach in my Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing programme - the front-end disciplines from major capital projects, made practical for people working in change, transformation, PMOs and consulting. If you've ever thought "I could see the problem, but I was brought in too late," it was built for you. Next cohort starts next Thursday. → Explore the Academy and the next cohort

Source: Canva custom made image We talk about “success” in projects all the time. Everyone wants a successful project. Everyone assumes they’re aligned on what that means. And yet, I keep seeing projects that are delivered on time and on budget and still leave people uneasy once they’re live. That discomfort is a clue. More often than not, it’s not a delivery problem. It’s a definition of success problem. When “Success” Sounds Aligned But Isn’t In many industries, success is measured by getting something done. Take pharma as an example. A project is often considered successful when: the product reaches the market regulatory approvals are achieved timelines are met All of that matters. But it’s not the whole story. Because getting a product to market doesn’t automatically mean it made a meaningful difference for patients. I see the same pattern in oil & gas, mining, and large capital projects. One person defines success as speed. Another as cost certainty. Another as regulatory compliance. Another as long-term value. Same project. Different definitions. People nod in meetings but they’re nodding for different reasons. That’s how misalignment starts quietly and shows up later as rework, frustration, or decision paralysis. A Different Starting Point: What Must Be True? When we work with clients in oil & gas or mining, we don’t start with solutions. We start with a much simpler and harder question: What must be true for this project to be considered a success? Not what would be nice. Not what worked last time. Not what one function prefers. The non-negotiables. What value must this project create? For whom? Under what constraints? What cannot be compromised? This conversation changes the tone in the room almost immediately. Instead of debating ideas, people start aligning on intent. Opportunity Framing: Slowing Down on Purpose This is where Opportunity Framing Workshops come in. These workshops are designed to slow teams down at the very start- not to delay progress, but to avoid expensive misalignment later. In a framing workshop, we help teams: clarify the real problem they’re trying to solve align on value drivers and success criteria surface assumptions, risks, and constraints agree on how decisions will be made The goal isn’t a detailed plan. The goal is shared understanding. Once that exists, decisions become much easier and much faster. Building a Family House Example Imagine a family deciding to build a house. Everyone agrees on one thing: “We want a great home.” It sounds aligned but it usually isn’t. Opportunity Framing in Real Life The first mistake many families make is jumping straight into design: floor plans, carpets, kitchens, number of bedrooms. That’s execution. Framing comes before that. In an opportunity framing conversation, the family would pause and ask: Why are we building this house now? What problem are we actually trying to solve? Is this about space, lifestyle, finances, schools, flexibility or downsizing or something completely else? What does success look like five years after we move in? For one partner, success might mean room for the kids to grow. For the other, it might mean financial security and manageable debt. For both, it might mean a home that supports family life without constant stress. Framing doesn’t produce a design. It produces shared intent. Everyone leaves aligned on why they are doing this and what truly matters. Without that alignment, every later decision becomes a negotiation. Making Success Practical: Minimum Functional Requirements Defining success conceptually is important. Making it testable is even more powerful. That’s why we often recommend after framing to do a Minimum Functional Requirements (MFR) Workshop. Once intent is clear, the next question is no longer: “What do we want?” It becomes: What must be true for this to work? In the family house example, Minimum Functional Requirements might include: the mortgage must stay within an agreed monthly limit the house must be within a certain distance of school and work each child must have their own bedroom at least one office space the house must be safe, insurable, and compliant with local regulations These are not preferences like a bigger kitchen or a nicer view. They are non-negotiables. If a beautiful design breaks one of these conditions, it is not a viable option - no matter how attractive it looks. The same logic applies in projects. Without Minimum Functional Requirements, teams can spend months optimizing solutions that should never have been considered in the first place. Success Is About Value Not Just Delivery One of the most important shifts I see teams make is this: Success isn’t just about delivering a project. It’s about what exists after the project is realized. What value has been created? Who benefits from that value? Who is accountable once the project moves into operation? A project can be delivered perfectly and still fall short if that value was never clearly defined. Because when success is clear at the start, execution becomes simpler, faster, and far less costly. And when it isn’t - no amount of great execution can fix it. If you're working on complex projects, it’s worth taking a look at our training page - we support teams through an 8-week cohort or custom in-house programs designed to get projects decision-ready. https://academy.wilson.biz/

Source: custom made in Canva If you look at almost any job description for a Director of Innovation today, it reads like a blueprint for driving meaningful change, shaping the future of an organisation, and unlocking value through creativity, collaboration, and strategic thinking. Take this example:   “The Director of Innovation is accountable for developing and leading the innovation program… fosters a culture of innovation, generates creative solutions aligned with the company’s strategy, and works cross-functionally to identify high-impact opportunities.”   Another example: “We are seeking a Director, Venture Design & Innovation Delivery to own end-to-end execution of innovation concepts - from design sprint through prototyping, pilot, and transition to scale. While the role primarily leads and drives execution through others, the successful candidate is also comfortable stepping in directly when needed, particularly in early-stage or high-ambiguity phases, to accelerate learning and maintain momentum. On paper, it sounds clear, structured, and inspiring. In reality, it is one of the most complex roles in any organisation. Because behind these expectations sits a very different day-to-day experience - one defined not by a lack of ideas, but by a lack of clarity, alignment, and decision-making structure. The Role Sounds Strategic -The Reality Is Fragmented The same job description continues: “Identifies high-impact opportunities, facilitates collaborative ideation, and drives initiatives from concept through pilot and implementation.”   “Evaluates, prioritizes and presents innovative solutions for approval with key stakeholders… and collaborates with them to develop strategic roadmaps.” “Translates complex, unfamiliar, or ambiguous ideas into clear, compelling value propositions.” If you read this carefully, the expectation is not just to generate ideas, but to move them through an entire lifecycle - from concept to execution - while aligning multiple stakeholders, managing uncertainty, and delivering measurable outcomes. And this is where most organisations quietly struggle. Because while the expectations are clear, the mechanism for achieving them is often missing. The Missing Piece: Structured Thinking Before Execution In many organisations, innovation still follows a familiar pattern: an idea is generated, energy builds around it, stakeholders are engaged, and very quickly, the conversation shifts toward execution - pilots are launched, budgets are discussed, timelines are set. However, very little time is spent on deeply understanding what sits underneath the idea itself. Questions like: What is the real problem we are solving? What are the alternative ways of solving it? What assumptions are we making and are they valid? What does success actually look like across different stakeholders? are either rushed or skipped entirely. This is not because teams lack capability, but because most organisations do not have a structured way to  hold this space  before execution begins. Why Cross-Functional Work Makes This Even Harder The challenge becomes even more pronounced in roles that are inherently cross-functional. The job description explicitly states:   “Working cross-functionally… building alignment and buy-in across teams with varying levels of change readiness.” “Operates effectively in environments characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity, and elevated organizational pressure.” In practice, this means navigating:   different priorities (operations vs. strategy vs. finance) different incentives different definitions of success and often, different levels of risk tolerance Without a clear structure, what follows is predictable: more meetings, more discussions, more iterations - but not necessarily better decisions. This Is Where Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing Come In The Decision Gate Process, based on the Stage-Gate methodology developed by Robert G. Cooper, introduces a simple but powerful idea: instead of continuously pushing initiatives forward, you break them into phases, with clear decision points - gates - in between. At each gate, leadership does not ask for updates or progress reports. They ask a fundamentally different question:   “Given what we now know, where we want to be, does this still deserve to move forward?” This shift alone changes the nature of conversations - from activity-based to decision-based. However, the real value comes from what happens   before   those gates. Opportunity Framing: Where the Real Work Happens Before committing to a solution, Opportunity Framing creates a structured way to explore the problem space properly, bringing together the right people at the right time. This includes: those impacted by the problem those who will execute the solution those who understand the technical and operational complexity and those who will ultimately make or fund the decision Rather than relying on fragmented conversations, this approach enables teams to: clarify the real opportunity explore meaningful alternatives test assumptions early and align on what success looks like The outcome is not just a better idea, but a  better-defined, lower-risk path forward . AI Is a Perfect Example of Why This Matters Nowhere is this more visible than in AI initiatives. Many organisations are currently saying: “Let’s implement AI.” But without clarity, this often leads to: disconnected pilots unclear value propositions duplicated efforts across teams and significant investment with limited return A framing approach shifts the conversation entirely: Where does AI create real value? Which problems are worth solving first? What needs to be true for this to scale? How do we measure success across the organisation?  From Replaceable to Irreplaceable For consultants, innovation leaders, and transformation professionals, this is where the real opportunity lies. Because the value is no longer in generating ideas or producing outputs. It is in enabling better decisions. In being the person who can walk into complexity, structure thinking, align stakeholders, and guide organisations through uncertainty with clarity and confidence. Final Thought   Most organisations do not have an innovation problem. They have a decision-making problem at the start of initiatives. And until that is addressed, even the best ideas and the most advanced technologies - will struggle to deliver their full potential. If This Resonates We are launching our first 8-week cohort on the Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing, starting on April 29. You will get immediate access to all materials - including training videos, guides, and templates - so you can start applying this thinking right away, even before the live sessions begin. This is a practical program where you will bring your own initiative or project and work through it with us, building clarity, alignment, and a structured roadmap that you can take back into your organisation. For more and to sign up go here:   https://academy.wilson.biz/ Everything we’ve discussed here is also covered in our book   “Where Projects Are Won or Lost,”   which all participants receive as part of the program "Where Projects Are Won or Lost" If you’re working in innovation, strategy, transformation or consulting and want to move from ideas to well-defined, decision-ready initiatives… this is worth exploring.

Source: Canva For a long time, I used to say that   projects need fixing . It sounded reasonable, practical, even helpful. But over time, that language stopped sitting well with me. Fixing assumes something is broken. And who is to say that? What I see now isn’t failure. It’s   patterns . And patterns don’t ask for judgment - they ask for attention. Imagine this for a moment Imagine a couple building a house together. Both are intelligent, thoughtful, smart, well-intentioned. And they argue, a lot. Not because either of them is wrong or not because one isn’t listening. But because they are speaking from different hymn sheets. They never fully aligned on the   vision   of the house: What matters most What is non-negotiable What can be compromised What “good” actually looks like So every design choice becomes a debate. Every change feels personal. Every decision reopens old assumptions. Nothing is broken. But the BEGINNING IS TOO NARROW for what the project requires. Projects don’t break. They unfold. Projects behave the same way. Direction is set early, sometimes formally, and everything that follows expands from that point. Execution doesn’t correct direction. It   amplifies it . That’s why strong teams can deliver impressive results… that still don’t quite match the original intent. Vision before requirements What’s missing in many projects isn’t effort or capability. It’s a   shared vision . Only once vision is aligned does it make sense to talk about requirements. This is where   minimum functional requirements   matter. Not exhaustive specifications. Not perfection. Just a clear set of conditions that must be met for each key stakeholder to say: “Yes - this works for me.” These requirements surface differences early: What must be included What is flexible Where trade-offs exist Where tension may appear later Without this, teams still move forward but alignment is assumed, not established. The value of a minimal roadmap Once vision and minimum requirements are clear, the next expansion is a   minimal roadmap . Not a detailed plan - JUST A HIGH LEVEL MAP One that shows: Key phases  Decision points (gates) Major milestones Expected deliverables Assurance activities Primary risks in each phase This roadmap doesn’t predict the future. It creates   shared orientation . People know where they are, what matters next, and what decisions shape the path forward. Why strong teams make this easier to miss Good teams are very good at filling gaps. They turn ambiguity into action. They make assumptions workable. They keep things moving. This is a strength - not a flaw. But when early alignment is missing, momentum can hide it. Progress looks real. Activity feels reassuring. Until outcomes start asking questions no one paused to explore at the start. Cognitive patterns at the beginning Early project stages are shaped by very human tendencies: We anchor on the first viable idea Familiar solutions feel safer Early effort increases commitment Optimism smooths over uncertainty These aren’t mistakes. They’re natural responses to complexity. Expanding the beginning - through framing, vision alignment, and early mapping - doesn’t remove these tendencies. t simply brings them into view. Why this matters for complex projects - everywhere Whether the project involves: Energy transition Infrastructure Technology platforms Healthcare systems Product development A complex organizational initiative Complexity behaves the same way. Multiple stakeholders. Different definitions of success. Interdependencies. Uncertainty. In these environments, outcomes are shaped less by control and more by   how fully the beginning is expanded . What I say now instead of “fixing projects” I no longer say projects need fixing. That language carries judgment I don’t find useful. What I do believe is this: Projects often need to evolve or expand, especially at the start.  Not because something is wrong. But because beginnings shape results. Given the law of cause and effect, that feels less like opinion and more like observation. A quiet leverage point The most influential moment in a project isn’t delivery. It’s the moment when direction first takes shape, often before anyone calls it a project at all. That’s not a problem to solve. It’s a place to pause, expand, and align. And sometimes, that is enough to change everything that follows.

Why cross-functional collaboration breaks down in early projects and why it no longer works In the early stages of most projects, activity is not the problem. Engineering teams are designing. Finance teams are modelling. Delivery teams are planning. From the outside, it looks like momentum. Internally, it feels like progress. But when projects later stall, overrun, or get cancelled, the same question keeps coming up: Why didn’t we see this earlier? The uncomfortable answer is usually not that the information was missing. It’s that it never came together in the SAME room, at the SAME time, with the RIGHT PEOPLE. The illusion of progress There is a well-documented cognitive bias known as the   progress illusion . We think because we are doing the work - it means we are making a progress. Producing outputs (such as deliverables) feels safe. Making shared decisions feels exposed. Peter Drucker captured this perfectly when he said: “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” ! Early project phases are often full of efficient work but very little collective sense-making. How this shows up in energy projects In energy developments, this pattern often starts with strong technical work keeping the momentum going. Reservoir studies progress. Concept layouts are refined. Cost estimates are built. Each discipline does excellent work but largely in SEQUENCE or in parallel, NOT in dialogue. Engineering optimises a technically elegant solution. Finance tests the economics. Commercial teams negotiate terms once the concept feels “mature.” By the time these perspectives collide, the project has already taken shape. Assumptions about recoverable volumes, possible revenue streams, or market access have quietly become givens. When prices or a policy shifts or technical limits are reached, the response is often surprise - even though the signals were there from the beginning. What about Mining projects? Mining projects frequently suffer from a similar pattern, especially during expansions or brownfield developments. Geology identifies upside. Processing engineers design for throughput. Operations focus on reliability. Each function optimises its part. But early cross-functional conversations about trade-off (e.g. grade versus recovery), throughput versus variability, capital efficiency versus operational flexibility are often postponed. Instead of collective FRAMING, teams rely on HANDOVERS. When issues later emerge such as lower recoveries, higher operating costs, unexpected constraints - these are treated as execution problems. In reality, they were early decision problems that were never explored together. What about Renewables? In renewables, the pressure to move fast amplifies the issues. Projects race from site control to interconnection applications to offtake negotiations. Yield assumptions are locked in early. Technology choices are made under time pressure. Decisions are often made under political pressure Engineering, grid specialists, commercial teams, and developers often work in SILOS to meet aggressive timelines. The result? Projects that look viable on paper but struggle with big risks that were not fully understood, PPA (power purchase agreements) structures that don’t match operational realities, social and political pressure to show progress and supply chain and market price assumptions that can change when the market changes (or are too optimistic from the start). When these risks appear, teams say,   “No one could have predicted this.”   In many cases, someone did but not in a forum where it could shape the decision. Why people retreat into their own lanes This lack of collaboration is rarely about ego or incompetence. It’s driven by predictable human and organisational forces. People are rewarded for FUNCTIONAL EXCELLENCE, not for slowing down to integrate perspectives. Confirmation bias pushes teams to seek information that supports the emerging narrative. Authority bias discourages challenge in top-down environments. Add cognitive overload and people naturally default to what they know best. They think ALONE, then report later. Why this model no longer works This approach made sense in a world where projects were linear, scope was relatively stable, technology evolved slowly, and consequences unfolded over years. That world is gone. Today’s projects operate in environments where assumptions expire quickly, risks cascade across systems, and decisions become irreversible far earlier than teams realise. McKinsey research consistently shows that the majority of large capital projects underperform, not because teams fail to execute, but because   critical trade-offs are never resolved early . Parallel work without shared decision-making no longer creates speed. It creates early lock-in. Why AI makes the problem worse   This gap becomes even more dangerous when organisations try to “fix” it with AI. AI can optimise models, accelerate analysis, and surface patterns faster than any team ever could. But AI does   NOT   create shared understanding. It amplifies whatever assumptions, boundaries, and decisions already exist - THEY CAN BE right or wrong. When teams lack early cross-functional alignment, AI doesn’t resolve the confusion. It AMPLIFIES IT. Engineering feeds one set of assumptions. Finance feeds another. Commercial teams optimise against a different objective altogether. The result is faster output not better decisions. In organisations without early framing and shared dialogue, AI often accelerates lock-in. It gives teams confidence in answers to questions that were never agreed on in the first place. Instead of challenging assumptions, AI can make them look precise, validated, and unquestionable. In that context, “streamlining with AI” doesn’t reduce risk. It moves teams more quickly toward decisions they never consciously made together. The cost of staying in your head When cross-functional collaboration doesn’t happen early, the same pattern repeats. Teams stay busy. Documents multiply. Assumptions remain implicit. Decisions are deferred. By the time alignment is forced - often at a gate or crisis - the real choices are already gone. As one executive told me after a painful post-project review: “We answered all the questions. Just not together.” I’ve seen this play out repeatedly I’ve facilitated lessons-learned sessions across energy projects where teams traced major overruns back to risks that were visible from day one. The information existed. The risks were known. The signals were present. What was missing was an early moment where the right people paused together and asked: What does this mean across the whole system? That pause never happened. Why the next generation is pushing back This is where generational expectations are starting to matter. Gen Z professionals are far less comfortable with siloed ownership, opaque decision-making, and being asked to execute without context. They expect transparency, inclusion in early conversations, and clarity about   why   decisions are made and not just   what   needs to be delivered. They are willing to challenge assumptions but only if the system allows it. Many organisations still don’t. What works instead The answer isn’t more meetings or heavier process. What works is   intentional, early cross-functional framing . Bringing the right disciplines together early and not to solve everything, but to surface assumptions explicitly, raise issues safely, explore trade-offs, understand what becomes irreversible, and decide on measures of success, roadmap, draft stakeholders map and what actually needs to be decided now. Not every conversation leads to a decision. But every good decision requires the right conversation. The real shift The most effective organisations don’t collaborate more. They collaborate   earlier . They understand that progress is not measured by how much work is done but by how clearly choices are made. In complex projects, the most dangerous signal isn’t uncertainty. It’s when everyone is busy and no one is deciding.

Source: canva What worked? What didn’t? And what needs to change before the next wave of projects begins? Across energy, mining, infrastructure, renewables, nonprofits, and the public sector, we are seeing clear shifts in how owners and leadership teams approach the front end of work. Here are the key trends we're seeing and why they matter. 1. Owners Are Reinvesting in Front-End Capability - not just the process There is growing interest in  Decision Gate training that covers project development process - among owner organizations , but not in the traditional sense of compliance or documentation. What leaders are want is: hands-on capability building practical guidance rooted in real decisions teams who understand  why  the process exists and how to use it - not just  how  to follow it The focus has moved from   having a Decision Gate   to  using it well . 2. Many Organizations Are Quietly Re-Examining Their Governance Process A trend I see more often - though rarely spoken out loud - is leaders asking: “Does our governance process actually help us make better decisions?” Organizations are beginning to: review the governance process guidelines simplify over-engineered requirements question whether documentation supports decision quality or just compliance For many, this is the first step toward  refreshing governance so it works in practice, not just on paper . 3. Opportunity Framing Is Becoming Recognized as a Missing Capability More owners are realizing that   framing the opportunity well   is a skill - not a meeting. They are investing in: structured and facilitated opportunity framing testing assumptions and exploring options clearer definitions of value and success This shift reflects a deeper understanding: 👉   The quality of execution is often shaped by the quality of framing. 4. Innovation Is Moving Upstream - to the Front End Owners are acknowledging that faster, more innovative projects don’t come from tighter schedules later - they come from   better thinking EARLIER. Innovation is showing up in: how problems are defined how options are explored how constraints are challenged before solutions are locked The front end is becoming a   design and discovery space , not a formality. 5. Project Professionals Are Outgrowing Traditional Project Management Many project professionals - especially those entering energy, infrastructure, and public-sector work from other industries - are recognizing the   limits of heavy execution-focused approaches too early . They are seeking: better ways to initiate projects structured stakeholder alignment facilitation-led approaches that deal with complexity, not just schedules The question is shifting from   “How do we deliver?”   to   “Are we solving the right problem?” 6. Large Consulting & Engineering Firms Are Reaching Out for Specialist Expertise Another clear trend:   large consulting and engineering firms are increasingly reaching out for deep front-end expertise . Why? their clients are demanding stronger early decisions complexity is increasing internal capability is stretched Specialist skills in   framing, facilitation, governance, and decision quality   are being pulled into larger teams to strengthen the front end of major programs. 7. Renewable & Transition Projects Are Forcing Reflection, Not Just Retrenchment Funding cuts and resets in renewable and transition projects are triggering something important. Rather than abandoning work, many organizations are: reflecting on what has already been done capturing lessons and knowledge revisiting assumptions and strategy improving how early decisions are made This pause is creating space for   better front-end thinking . 8. Local Governments Are Seeking Owner’s Engineer Support Earlier Across infrastructure and public-sector projects, I’m seeing local governments   reach out earlier for owner’s engineer and advisory support . Why? repeated project overruns public scrutiny loss of trust There’s a growing recognition that   strong governance, early decision support, and independent challenge   are essential - not optional. 9. New Investors Are Entering the Energy Market and Building Their Own Owner Teams New investors entering energy and infrastructure are not relying solely on contractors to set direction. Instead, they are: building internal owner's teams seeking owner’s engineer support setting up governance and decision frameworks early investing in front-end clarity before committing capital This is a sign of a   more mature investment mindset . 10. Summits Are Becoming Decision Platforms, Not Just Events There is renewed interest in   summits, leadership forums, and cross-stakeholder gatherings   with a clear expectation: 👉 They must lead to decisions and action. Organizations are moving away from inspiration-only events and toward: outcome-driven summits facilitated alignment across diverse groups structured conversations that surface real issues Summits are increasingly used as   front-end alignment and decision tools . 11. AI Is Exposing Weak Front-End Thinking - Not Replacing It As AI tools become more common in project planning, analysis, and reporting, an important pattern is emerging: 👉   AI amplifies the quality of the input it receives. Organizations are discovering that: unclear objectives produce misleading AI outputs poorly framed problems lead to confident-looking, but wrong recommendations misaligned stakeholders still disagree - faster As a result, owners are realizing that   AI cannot compensate for weak front-end work . Instead, AI is increasing demand for: clear problem statements well-framed decisions explicit assumptions and constraints structured governance and decision logic In practice, teams that invest in   opportunity framing, alignment, and decision quality early   are the ones actually benefiting from AI - while others are simply accelerating confusion. A Final Thought The common thread across all these trends is simple: The front end matters more than ever.

Every industry is suddenly talking about   value . PMI’s brand-new PMBOK® Guide places   value   at the center of modern project management. It’s a necessary shift - but still incomplete. Because here’s the truth: Most organizations don’t actually know where value is created. They try to “deliver value” in execution… when real value is shaped months (or years) earlier. This gap between   where value is created   and   where leaders think it is created   - explains why so many projects struggle, stall, or fail before they truly begin. 1. PMI Is Right - Value Matters. But It Doesn’t Explain Where It Comes From. PMI’s latest edition emphasizes: value creation  value delivery  value sustainment  strategic alignment  iterative planning All important. But PMI does   not   clearly describe the moment value is actually formed. It does not explicitly say: Value is created before execution - in decisions, not deliverables. This is where methodologies like   “ opportunity framing ”   and the   “stage gate process”   become essential. 2. The IPA Model: Value Is Created in the Front-End (FEL) Independent Project Analysis (IPA) has studied more than   20,000 capital projects   over 35 years. Their findings are unambiguous: Up to 80% of a project’s total value is determined during the Front-End Loading (FEL) stages. Sources: IPA Institute - FEL Index & Project Performance  https://www.ipaglobal.com   Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg book -  “How big things get done" . IPA breaks FEL into three stages: Assess (FEL-1) : Business case clarity, opportunity shaping Concept (FEL-2) : Options development and selection Develop (FEL-3) : Scope definition before execution Projects with strong FEL outperform others dramatically: Cost outcomes are 20–25% more predictable   Schedule performance improves by 15–20%   Failure rates decrease by more than half These numbers show that   value creation happens during FEL - not execution . And yet… Most organizations spend only   1–10%   of project time here. 3. Value Creation vs. Value Maintenance (And Why Leaders Confuse Them) Value Creation = Early Stage Decisions This includes: “Framing” the opportunity Defining the problem correctly Identifying value drivers Defining success criteria Aligning stakeholders Testing assumptions Identifying and mapping risks Exploring multiple solutions Selecting the optimal concept Setting strategic direction Determining economic feasibility This is where   direction ,   scope , and   strategy   are decided. Wrong here → wrong everywhere. This is what IPA calls   FEL value . Value Maintenance = Execution & Operations Once the right concept is selected: planning execution monitoring control commissioning operations optimization These activities   protect   value - they do not create new value. Execution can only deliver the value designed earlier. 4. Why Organizations Get It Wrong Executives love momentum. They love progress. They love action. So they accelerate: planning resourcing scheduling architecture design contracting procurement construction software development And they skip over the slower, more thoughtful work: understanding the real problem validating assumptions aligning sponsors and key decision - makers defining scope boundaries exploring options clarifying success aligning stakeholders This leads to the most common industry failure pattern: Jumping to execution before creating value. Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg captured this perfectly: “Over 90% of megaprojects go over budget or over schedule - or both.”   Source:   Oxford University – Megaprojects and Risk 5. How the “Stage Gate Process” Reveals Value Creation The   “stage gate process”   (also called the Decision Gate Process) separates the lifecycle into phases with strict decision points between them. It makes value creation visible: Gates 1-2-3 = Value Creation (“Think Slow”) Here we: ✔ frame the opportunity ✔ identify and compare options ✔ test assumptions ✔ model uncertainty ✔ define success ✔ choose the path ✔ build alignment ✔ create confidence Gates 4-5 = Value Maintenance (“Act Fast”) Here we: ✔ execute ✔ deliver ✔ control risk ✔ assure performance ✔ sustain outcomes The brilliance of the “stage gate process” is its simplicity: Slow down early. Speed up later. 6. Agile or Waterfall - The Truth Is the Same Some believe that value creation is only for Waterfall projects. Not true. In Agile Value creation is in: problem definition user value mapping sprint goal alignment stakeholder clarity Agile only succeeds when the   problem is framed correctly . In Waterfall Value creation is in: concept select business case FEL 1–3 pre-feed definition In Hybrid Value creation is front-loaded, value delivery is iterative. Regardless of method: You can only deliver well if you decide well. 7. The Real Reason Projects Fail Most organizations do not have a   problem with execution . They have a problem with: ❌ poor “framing” ❌ unclear value ❌ premature decision-making ❌ weak options analysis ❌ stakeholder misalignment ❌ fear of slowing down ❌ unclear scope boundaries ❌ undefined success criteria They rush into activity and activity feels like progress. But progress without clarity is just motion. And motion without value is waste. 8. Final Thought - Value Is Not Delivered, It Is Designed The PMBOK is moving in the right direction. But IPA’s research makes one thing crystal clear: Value is created in early-stage decisions not execution. If you want predictable outcomes:    invest in “framing workshops” discipline the front end work use the “stage gate process” make decisions that create value  align before you act Because: Value is not an outcome of execution. Value is an outcome of clarity. Frame it well. Decide well. Then deliver with confidence. 9. Want to Learn This Approach? Join My Course:   Mastering the Decision Gate Process ** For project executives, PMs, engineers, and decision-makers who want to: ✔ reduce project failure ✔ improve front-end loading ✔ make better strategic decisions ✔ use framing workshops ✔ implement the “stage gate process” with confidence ✔ create value early and maintain it through delivery The course includes: • video lessons • real project case studies (oil & gas, mining, infrastructure) • tools & templates • a full Decision Gate roadmap • examples using your PATH framework • guidance on running opportunity framing workshops • access to a private discussion group If your organization struggles with unclear scope, rework, late surprises, or rushed execution - this course was built for you.

How Stage Gate + Framing Give Prosci + Adkar a Strategic Edge Change management has never been more in demand. Scroll through LinkedIn and you’ll find hundreds of job openings for   Change Managers   -across every sector: digital transformation, sustainability, technology adoption, cultural change, mergers, and restructures. Organizations know that transformation fails without people who can lead it. But here’s the truth:   change management alone is no longer enough. If you want to create a competitive advantage as a change professional, you need to master not only   Prosci and ADKAR , but also   Stage Gate and Opportunity Framing   and, more importantly, know how to explain the difference. What Is Prosci and the ADKAR Model? Prosci is one of the world’s leading authorities in change management research and training. Its two core frameworks are: The ADKAR Model   - which focuses on   individual change   through five elements:   A – Awareness:  understanding why the change is needed  D – Desire:  wanting to support the change  K – Knowledge:  knowing how to change  A – Ability:  being able to implement new skills or behaviors  R – Reinforcement:  sustaining the change over time The Three-Phase Organizational Change Process , which helps structure how change is implemented at scale:   Phase 1 – Prepare Approach:  define approach, impact, success Phase 2 – Manage Change:  engage stakeholders, execute plans, and monitor progress  Phase 3 – Sustain Outcomes:  review performance, measure results, and ensure longevity Together, these frameworks provide a strong foundation for   PEOPLE-DRIVEN CHANGE . But they assume that the   initiative itself is already well-defined and strategically aligned   - and that’s often where the trouble begins. The Limitations of Traditional Change Management Even well-structured change programs fail when the   wrong   project or unclear goals are pursued.   Common mistakes include: Jumping straight into communications and training before validating the business problem. Assuming executive alignment that isn’t really there. Confusing activity with progress - “managing” a change that lacks strategic clarity. Ignoring decision-making and governance as part of the change process. Treating change management as an  add-on , rather than part of the organization’s decision framework.   In many cases, these failures could have been avoided if the initiative had been   framed and governed correctly at the front end. Where Stage Gate + Opportunity Framing Fit In The   Stage Gate process   provides the governance and decision discipline that complements Prosci’s people focus. It divides a project into   phases , separated by   gates   where leadership reviews value, alignment, and readiness before approving the next step. Typical stages include: Assess:  What problem or opportunity exists? Where is the value going to come from? Concept:  What is the best option to pursue? Develop:  Prepare and resource the plan. Execute:  Implement the change. Operate:  Measure benefits and ensure sustainability. Opportunity Framing   supports this by ensuring that   before any execution begins , leaders and stakeholders are aligned on: The real problem or opportunity What success looks like The range of possible options and decision criteria The key risks, assumptions, and givens Who will make decisions and when What's the min amount of work required to realize the change Together, Stage Gate and Framing ensure that   the right change is being pursued , not just that people are adapting to it.   How They Complement Prosci’s 3-Phase Process   Stage Gate and Opportunity Framing perfectly complement Prosci’s three-phase change process by adding structure and strategic clarity to each step: This integration bridges the gap between organizational decision-making and people adoption - ensuring that both are addressed together, not separately. How Framing Facilitators and Change Managers Work Together A   framing facilitator   helps kick-start the change before the formal change management process begins:   Before the Change (Framing + Early Gates)  Facilitator brings leaders and stakeholders together to define the opportunity. Strategic alignment and value proposition are clarified. Key decisions, givens, and risks are identified. The outcome is a clear roadmap approved at Gate 1 and Gate 2. During the Change (ADKAR + Mid Gates)  Change managers use ADKAR to guide awareness, desire, knowledge, and ability. Stage Gate checkpoints include reviews of both  technical  and  human readiness. After Implementation (Operate + Reinforcement)  Reinforcement plans are aligned with the final gate review. Lessons learned feed into future opportunity framing sessions. This partnership transforms change management from a reactive support function into a strategic enabler of value.   Real-World Examples 1. Digital Transformation in a Manufacturing Company  A manufacturer launched an enterprise software rollout to “standardize operations.” Despite heavy investment in training, adoption was poor. A midstream   Opportunity Framing session   revealed that leadership had never agreed on what “standardization” meant. After reframing and resetting through the   Stage Gate roadmap , executives defined clear goals and criteria for success. Once aligned, the change manager applied   Prosci’s three-phase approach   - engaging stakeholders, managing transition, and reinforcing new behaviors. Within six months, user adoption increased by 70% and efficiency targets were met.   2. Culture Change in an Energy Company An energy company launched a “safety-first” initiative. Communication campaigns rolled out, but behavior didn’t change. A   framing facilitator   was brought in to redefine the opportunity. The goal shifted from “compliance improvement” to “empowering safe decision-making.” This new frame shaped leadership messages, engagement plans, and metrics. Stage Gate governance ensured readiness reviews considered both process and behavioral change, while the   ADKAR model   supported employees through awareness, desire, and reinforcement. Within a year, incidents dropped, and engagement scores rose across all departments. Why This Combination Creates a Competitive Advantage   Change managers who integrate   Stage Gate and Opportunity Framing   with   Prosci’s process   stand out because they: Enter projects earlier, helping define the change - not just deliver it. Bridge strategy, governance, and people adoption. Speak the language of executives and sponsors, focusing on decision quality and value. Build credibility by aligning people readiness with project readiness. Prevent wasted effort on misaligned initiatives. This is how change managers evolve into change strategists and decision enablers - the professionals organizations truly need in an era of constant transformation. The Bottom Line LinkedIn may be full of jobs for Change Managers. But the ones who will stand out and shape the future of transformation - are those who can confidently say:   “I don’t just manage change. I help organizations frame it, decide on it, and deliver it - with clarity and alignment.” If that’s the kind of leader you want to become,   👉   check out our course  Mastering the Decision Gate Process  - now available at a One-More-Day Special Price. Go to  https://academy.wilson.biz/ You’ll learn how to combine Stage Gate and Framing can become a powerful approach that drives clarity, alignment, and measurable results. Because true change leadership doesn’t start with communication. It starts with framing the right change. #stagegateprecess #decisiongateprocess #changemanagement #opportunityframing Mastering The Decision Gate Process Training Program

Why Most Strategic Initiatives Fail Organizations across every industry are racing to implement   AI , digitize processes, or roll out new strategic initiatives. Yet, studies show that   over 95% of AI projects fail   ( Forbes ) to deliver the expected results. The problem isn’t the technology - it’s the lack of  alignment, clarity, and governance  before execution even starts. The Common Mistakes Jumping Straight to Execution  Teams often start coding, automating, or piloting before defining what success actually looks like. Without shared understanding of the problem, stakeholders pull in different directions. Fuzzy Value Proposition  Many initiatives start under a vague goal like “innovation” or “efficiency.” But unless the  value proposition  is clearly defined - how it will save money, create advantage, or reduce risk - there’s no way to measure success or justify the next investment. No Clear Governance or Decision Points  Projects drag on because nobody defined what needs to be completed to move forward, or who approves each stage. Without milestones, progress turns into motion. The Real Challenge Strategic initiatives can start from many directions - a strategic planning cycle, a CEO or board directive, market pressure to innovate faster, government regulations driving compliance or sustainability, or competitive disruptions demanding a rapid response. The issue? By the time these initiatives reach execution, the intent is often clear but the   frame   is not. Across industries, leaders are facing similar struggles: Competing initiatives with overlapping objectives Unclear ownership and inconsistent reporting Lack of measurable outcomes or value realization No shared language between strategy, IT, and operations This is especially visible in AI implementations, ESG programs, and company-wide digital transformations, where enthusiasm is high but direction is unclear. A Better Way - Treat Strategic Initiatives Like Projects Even if it’s not building a plant or pipeline, every strategic initiative deserves the same rigor as a capital project. The   Decision Gate Process (DGP)   and   Opportunity Framing (OF)   provide a structured way to create clarity, manage uncertainty, and guide investments step by step. Below is a simplified overview of how it works. The Decision Gate Framework Stage 1 – Screen the Opportunity (Assess) Purpose:   Identify potential initiatives and assess whether they are worth exploring. This is where ideas from strategy sessions, CEOs, or market pressures are captured and quickly screened for value and alignment. Gate 1 – Assess Gate   Decision-makers ask: Does this opportunity align with our strategy? Is it big enough to matter? Should we allocate resources to investigate further? What is the value proposition? What is a high - level roadmap? If yes, the initiative moves to full framing and concept development. Stage 2 – Frame and Select the Concept Purpose:   Understand the problem, frame the opportunity, and explore solution options. Here, teams use   Opportunity Framing workshops   to align stakeholders, define success, identify uncertainties, and decide which options should be developed. Gate 2 – Concept Gate   Decision-makers ask: Have we clearly defined the problem and objective? Have we compared alternative approaches or technologies? Do we have confidence in the preferred path forward? This gate ensures the organization is investing in the   right   idea and the  right solution   before development begins. Stage 3 – Develop the Concept Purpose:   Turn the selected concept into a viable plan. This stage includes detailed design, business case development, risk assessments, and stakeholder engagement. It’s where assumptions from framing are tested and refined. Gate 3 – Develop Gate   Decision-makers ask: Is the business case sound and supported by data? Are risks understood and mitigated? Are we ready to commit to full execution? Passing this gate often unlocks significant investment or pilot implementation. Stage 4 – Execute Purpose:   Deliver the solution or implement the system, guided by clear scope, schedule, and KPIs. For AI or digital initiatives, this means coding, testing, integrating, and validating outcomes against the framed objectives. Gate 4 – Execution Gate   Decision-makers ask: Is implementation meeting quality, cost, and schedule expectations? Are benefits being realized as planned? Are we ready to move to operational handover? Stage 5 – Operate and Optimize Purpose:   Embed, measure, and improve. This is where the initiative becomes part of daily operations, and lessons learned are captured to improve future decisions. Gate 5 – Operate Gate   Decision-makers ask: Are the expected benefits being achieved? Are there opportunities to optimize or scale further? What lessons can be applied to the next cycle? Examples of How It Works Example 1: AI Implementation   A global company rushed to deploy AI tools across departments. Six months later, there was no adoption and no measurable improvement. After reframing the initiative, they realized each team had a different definition of “success.” By applying the Decision Gate Process, they: Re-defined the business problem (“improve customer service response time by 50%”) Clarified value metrics and governance Set up staged gates:  Assess → Concept → Develop→ Execute → Operate.  The result? Clear accountability, measurable impact, and stakeholder confidence. Example 2: Company-Wide Reporting Tool   An organization wanted to integrate a single reporting system across all business units. Initially, each department had its own tools, data definitions, and priorities — chaos. Through Opportunity Framing, the team: Agreed on the value proposition: “One source of truth for decision-making.” Identified integration risks and data dependencies. Defined phased delivery: Assess  → Concept (Requirements )→ Develop → Execute (Pilot Sites) → Operate (Rollout)→ Optimization.  At each gate, they checked data readiness, user adoption, and business impact. What started as a messy IT rollout became a structured transformation with clarity and buy-in from every unit. Example 3: Sustainability Roadmap   A manufacturer committed to cutting emissions by 40% by 2030. Through framing and the Decision Gate Process, they: Broke down the goal into specific, achievable phases Prioritized high-impact opportunities first Set gates for review, validation, and assurance This turned a bold statement into a practical, fundable strategy. Inside Each Phase - Use the Right Methods Each stage of the Decision Gate Process can use methodologies that best fit the work: Design Thinking  for innovation and ideation Lean and Agile  for rapid validation Management System Risk and Assurance Reviews  for confidence before major investments The methods may vary but the process of aligning, framing, deciding, and governing stays consistent. The Opportunity Ahead When applied to strategic initiatives, the Decision Gate Process and Opportunity Framing: Turn uncertainty into structured progress Engage leaders and teams early to prevent rework Create a shared language for governance and decision-making Deliver clarity and accountability from idea to execution This is how the most effective organizations turn bold ideas into lasting impact. Building the Capability Our   training program   helps teams and leaders: Learn a shared language for governance and decisions Apply the stage gate process to strategic, digital, and AI initiatives Use framing tools to align stakeholders and clarify value Build clear roadmaps that connect strategy to execution Because no matter how advanced the technology, success starts with clarity, alignment, and governance. So,  don’t rush into AI or digital transformation.   Frame it first.  Decide with clarity.   Deliver with confidence. www.wilson.biz #aiprojects #stagegateprocess #decisiongateprocess #opportunityframing #facilitation #strategicinitiatives

Decision Gate / Stage Gate Process Training 101 Every year, billions of dollars are wasted on capital projects that never deliver the promised value. Why? Because they start running before anyone checks whether they're running in the right direction. That's where the Stage Gate (or Decision Gate Process) comes in - a proven governance framework used by the world's top-performing organizations to make better investment decisions, reduce waste, and align teams before committing resources. If you're a project executive, this isn't just another process - it's your best tool for protecting capital, building confidence, and driving project success.  1. The Core Principles of the Decision Gate / Stage Gate Process At its heart, the Decision Gate (formerly known as Stage Gate) Process is built on seven simple but powerful principles: Structured Lifecycle:  Projects move through defined phases (Assess, Concept, Develop, Execute, Operate), with key decision points - "gates" - in between. Informed Decisions:   Each gate requires evidence, not assumptions. Decisions are made based on predefined criteria, verified data, options analysis, and alignment to strategy. Scalability:   The level of rigor matches the project's complexity, cost and risk. Small projects move fast; big projects go deep. Ownership and Accountability:   Decision Review Board makes the decision. The sponsor owns the decision. The team owns the quality of inputs.   Assurance and Transparency:   Independent reviews ensure readiness, risk visibility, and clarity of outcomes before proceeding. Continuous Learning:   Lessons learned are captured at every stage to build organizational capability. Framing   – Before moving forward, the team must pause to ask the right questions:   What problem are we solving? What does success look like? What options exist? What are we choosing not to do?  Framing provides the foundation for every phase that follows - ensuring clarity, alignment, and purpose from the very beginning. These principles transform chaos into clarity and help organizations move from reactive firefighting to proactive decision-making. 2. Early Project Planning: The Missing Link in Traditional Project Management For decades, project professionals have relied on the traditional project lifecycle: Initiation, Planning, Execution, Monitoring, and Closure. While this framework provides structure for delivery, it has a critical gap - it assumes the right project has already been identified and approved. That assumption is where billions of dollars disappear. As one veteran project director from a major energy company puts it:   "We used to think project initiation meant assigning a project manager and opening a budget code. We learned the hard way that real initiation happens much earlier - before anyone even knows what the project should be." What Traditional Initiation Misses In the traditional model, initiation typically includes: Developing a project charter Identifying stakeholders Assigning team members Establishing baseline budgets and schedules But notice what's absent:   strategic alignment, problem definition, options evaluation, and decision framing. The Decision Gate Process fills this gap by expanding what should be included in project initiation. It recognizes that before you initiate execution, you must first initiate thinking. The Expanded Initiation: Assess and Concept Phases The Decision Gate Process introduces two critical phases that occur before traditional project initiation: Assess Phase:   Where opportunities are identified, problems are defined, and strategic alignment is confirmed. This is where organizations ask: "Should we even be considering this?" Concept Phase:   Where multiple options are evaluated, value drivers are analyzed, and the best path forward is chosen. This is where teams answer: "What's the right solution, and why?" Only after successfully passing through these gates does the project enter what traditional frameworks call "initiation" which in the Decision Gate model is actually the Develop Phase. As a senior portfolio manager from a global mining company notes:   "Once we started treating the Assess and Concept phases as part of our project lifecycle, we were finally solving the right problems instead of perfectly executing the wrong solutions." 3. The Role of Framing: The Foundation of Every Successful Project Before any project should begin, it must be framed - not just defined. Framing ensures everyone understands why the project exists, what problem it's solving, what success looks like, and what options exist. In a Framing Workshop, the leadership team aligns on: The Opportunity Statement:   What problem are we solving and why now? Definition of Success:   What does success look like for the business and stakeholders? Decision Hierarchy:   What key decisions need to be made, and by when? Value Drivers and Risks:   Where is the value created or destroyed? Options and Assumptions:   What are we choosing not to do and why? When done well, framing prevents teams from solving the wrong problem or designing the wrong solution - the two most expensive mistakes in project management. How Framing Connects to Traditional Project Initiation For organizations using traditional project management methodologies, framing can be seamlessly integrated as an enhanced front-end to the initiation phase. Think of it this way: Traditional Initiation:  Starts with a defined solution and focuses on how to deliver it Framing plus Initiation:  Starts with a defined problem and explores what should be delivered before committing to how This expanded view transforms initiation from an administrative task into a strategic value-creation activity. 4. Common Mistakes (and Why They Happen) Even experienced executives fall into predictable traps. Here are the most common ones: Rushing to Execution "We don't have time to slow down." Ironically, this mindset delays projects more than anything else. Skipping early-stage alignment creates rework, redesign, and stakeholder pushback later. Organizations that invest in proper framing and early planning consistently deliver projects faster and with fewer changes. Mistaking Deliverables for Decisions Teams often focus on producing documents rather than driving clarity. They hand over thick reports but can't answer: "What decision are we trying to make?" The Decision Gate Process reorients teams toward decision-making, not document production. Poor Integration Between Business and Projects The business strategy says one thing; the project team builds another. Misalignment between corporate priorities and execution goals creates frustration, cost, and wasted effort. Early planning and framing create the bridge between strategy and execution. Overconfidence and Bias Teams fall in love with their first solution or feel pressured to "just move forward." Without structured challenge and assurance, risk and optimism bias go unchecked. Independent gate reviews provide the necessary checks and balances. 5. Common Misconceptions About the Decision Gate Process "It's bureaucratic."   Only if you make it that way. A well-designed process is light, scalable, and focused on decisions, not paperwork. "It slows us down."   It actually accelerates delivery by eliminating confusion and rework. Think slow early, fast later. "It's for big projects only."   Not true. The Decision Gate approach can be tailored to any size - from a $1M improvement to a $10B mega project. "It's just a checklist."   Far from it. It's a decision-making system that connects strategy, risk, and execution across the lifecycle. "It replaces our current project management methodology."   Actually, it enhances it. The Decision Gate Process provides the strategic front-end that most traditional project lifecycles lack, creating a seamless flow from opportunity identification through project closure. 6. The Mindset Shift: From Deliverables-Driven to Decision-Driven Most organizations still measure progress by how many reports are written or reviews completed. That's deliverables-driven thinking. Decision-driven leaders, however, ask a different question:   "Have we made the right decisions, with the right people, at the right time?" This shift changes everything. It's not about producing information - it's about using information to decide what's next. Decision-driven leaders: Focus on clarity over completeness Involve the right stakeholders early Prioritize learning before committing Treat each gate as a value checkpoint, not a paperwork hurdle This is how world-class operators achieve predictable performance and capital efficiency. A project controls manager from a Fortune 500 company observes:   "When we shifted from asking 'Is the document complete?' to asking 'Can we make a confident decision?', our gate reviews became forty percent shorter and infinitely more valuable." 7. Why It Matters Now In today's environment of compressed schedules, remote teams, and AI-driven data, the ability to make fast, high-quality decisions is a competitive advantage.   The Decision Gate Process helps you: Reduce risk before committing capital Align cross-functional teams early Build transparent accountability Deliver predictable, measurable outcomes Bridge the gap between strategic intent and project execution Expand traditional project initiation to include proper framing and options analysis It's not just governance - it's leadership in action. As one executive sponsor summarizes:   "The Decision Gate Process gave us what the traditional project lifecycle couldn't: confidence that we're doing the right project, not just doing the project right." 8. Take the Next Step If you're ready to elevate how your organization makes decisions, explore our online course: "Mastering the Decision Gate Process." You'll learn: The core principles of the process How to design scalable governance for your organization How to lead effective gate reviews How to lead opportunity framing workshops How to create a culture that's decision-driven - not document-driven How to expand traditional project initiation to include strategic framing This course has been validated by the Project Management Institute (PMI) for 5.7 PDUs and endorsed by former executives from Shell, BHP, and Woodside.   Click   here   to learn more and enroll today. www.wilson.biz #stagegateprocess #decisiongateprocess #stagegatetraining #wilsonbiz #opportunityframing