Update to Management Consulting

{
  "description": "Turn an agreed recommendation into a feasible roadmap and implementation plan. Use for sequencing, workstreams, dependencies, resources, rollout gates, recovery plans, and the business case needed to fund execution.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "references/scheduling-and-resourcing.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 3210
    }
  ],
  "name": "implementation-planning",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: implementation-planning\ndescription: \"Turn an agreed recommendation into a feasible roadmap and implementation plan. Use for sequencing, workstreams, dependencies, resources, rollout gates, recovery plans, and the business case needed to fund execution.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  category: engagement-delivery\n  version: \"2.2.0\"\n  author: Anot\n---\n\n# Implementation Planning\n\nProduce a plan that respects funding, capacity, dependencies, and the decision already made. Enter at the requested stage: compare execution approaches, secure funding, design a roadmap, detail workstreams, or recover a slipping plan. Do not repeat strategy or build a new business case when the direction and funding are already approved.\n\nUse the supplied recommendation, constraints, milestones, resource availability, and baseline. Mark unknowns and proceed with supported portions. Ask only when a missing input prevents a useful or defensible plan. Label estimated durations, proposed owners, and unapproved dates explicitly; do not invent commitments.\n\n## Choose the feasible approach\n\nWhere execution choices are open, compare materially different approaches, including defer or continue current operations when relevant. Screen hard constraints before weighted preferences. A high score cannot compensate for missing legal eligibility, unaffordable peak funding, or unavailable capacity. Use weights only when they represent the decision-maker's priorities; test whether plausible changes alter the choice.\n\nIf funding analysis is requested, show incremental costs and benefits, timing, downside, and funding need against a consistent baseline. Distinguish released capacity from cash savings, and revenue from contribution. Use financial-modeling if available for substantial calculations; this workflow does not depend on that skill being installed. Do not invent a hurdle rate or add a standard contingency percentage to make a plan look complete.\n\n## Sequence the work\n\nDefine outcomes and acceptance criteria before assigning activities. Group workstreams by manageable responsibility and explicit interfaces. Map dependencies, required client decisions, vendor lead times, and business calendar constraints before committing dates.\n\nUse [scheduling and resourcing](references/scheduling-and-resourcing.md) for critical paths, effort, capacity, and recovery. Distinguish target dates from feasible forecasts. Protect business continuity and account for parallel operations, training, adoption, support, and benefit measurement where relevant.\n\nChoose rollout gates that release commitment as evidence improves. State the evidence needed, authority, and responses: proceed, proceed with bounded conditions, revise, or stop. These are gates for executing the plan, not prerequisites for drafting later phases. Provisional later phases can remain useful while earlier evidence is pending.\n\n## Assign ownership and control\n\nGive each deliverable an accountable role and the people doing the work. In a RACI, normally assign one A and at least one R, with combined A/R allowed on small teams. Confirm how joint legal authorities or mandated approvals are represented without hiding them in a simplified matrix. Keep consulted roles limited to those whose input changes the work.\n\nUse the client's existing governance where supplied. Set escalation by materiality, remaining decision time, and authority rather than generic two-week or 10% cutoffs. For ongoing reporting, project-governance can help when available. Separate consulting recommendations from client approval and spending authority.\n\n## Deliver and check\n\nPresent the outcome, sequence, workstreams, milestone evidence, dependencies, capacity, budget, risks, and immediate decision or action at the requested depth. A short roadmap does not require a full program handbook.\n\nVerify dates follow dependencies, resource demand fits availability, budgets reconcile, and benefits have a measurement owner. Show the limiting constraint and the consequence of delay. For a recovery plan, distinguish the original baseline, current forecast, and proposed reset; do not erase slippage by silently replacing the baseline. State the trigger and fallback for the risks that could defeat the plan.\n"
}