PlanScore Blog
Insights on project readiness, project plans and AI
A plan that passes one test and fails another
A high startup-readiness score says nothing about risks or stakeholders: three separate questions need three separate checks.
Read more →A high PlanScore score does not mean the project is risk-free
PlanScore tests whether a plan of approach is start-ready, not whether the project is free of risk. A named risk in a solid plan is often a better sign than a plan with no risks in it at all.
Read more →Norway's QA regime: why the timing of a review matters as much as the review itself
Norway's independent QA regime shows that when a review happens determines whether it can still change anything: before the decision it works, after it, it only documents.
Read more →Who reviews the plan — and do they benefit from saying yes?
Norway's independent quality-assurance regime for public investments shows that it is not the questionnaire but the reviewer's independence that determines whether a plan of approach gets an honest assessment.
Read more →A tightly run process is no proof of a strong plan
Process discipline and a plan being ready to start are not the same thing: research by Dvir, Raz and Shenhar shows project success correlates with sharply defined requirements, not with how thoroughly a formal process was implemented. For kickoff, that means checking content, not procedure.
Read more →A cost overrun gets a price tag. A shortfall in benefits often doesn't.
Cost overruns get all the attention in evaluations, but the shortfall in benefits that comes with them often goes unnoticed. Research on 2,062 capital projects shows these are two sides of the same problem — and that the root lies in the plan of approach.
Read more →Why a plan that is ready to start can still stall on stakeholders
PlanScore checks whether stakeholders have been arranged for in the plan, not how mature that relationship actually is — a difference that explains why a high score can still stall. A municipal case shows where the instrument's boundary lies and when StakeholderScan or RisicoRadar takes over.
Read more →Plans change anyway — so why still check before you start
The line 'plans are nothing, changing plans is everything' is often used to dismiss preparation as pointless. The evidence on start-up quality shows why that is a misreading.
Read more →"Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything" — and what it doesn't mean
Dvir and Lechler's quote is often used to dismiss a solid plan of approach. The evidence shows plan quality is a success signal — not a guarantee, but not a free pass to skip preparation either.
Read more →A start-ready plan lays the basis for honest progress reporting
A ready-to-start plan is not the end point but the foundation. Whoever sharpens outcome, scope and assumptions up front can report honestly on them during execution.
Read more →Readiness to start: why the quality of the plan before kickoff predicts project success
The quality of the plan before kickoff is the strongest known signal of project success — with an honest disclaimer: it is a predictor, not a guarantee.
Read more →A SMART goal that describes an activity is not an outcome
Most goals labelled 'SMART' describe an activity instead of a result. A good goal names the outcome — what is different once the project is done.
Read more →A sharper scope boundary demonstrably lowers the failure rate
Projects with a sharp scope definition demonstrably perform better on cost and schedule. A larger scope is not ambition — it is a higher chance of failure.
Read more →Optimism bias and the outside view: why estimates are systematically too rosy
Estimates are not occasionally too optimistic — they are so systematically. The remedy is not to think even harder, but to calibrate against what comparable projects really cost.
Read more →Governance without challenge is not a review, it's a signature
A plan reviewed only by its own makers has not been tested. Good governance arranges ownership, mandate and an independent view before the go.
Read more →Go/no-go criteria belong on paper before the start, not mid-project
A good plan sets out before the start under which conditions the project must be stopped. Whoever names no stopping criteria implicitly chooses to muddle on.
Read more →The Dutch line: from the Elias Committee via the BIT to the Advisory Board on IT Assessment
The Netherlands has its own, parliamentary-anchored line of evidence that reviewing before the start works — from the Elias Committee via the BIT to the Advisory Board on IT Assessment.
Read more →The concept choice is the biggest decision: weighing alternatives and the do-nothing option
The choice of which concept you carry out has more impact on success or failure than anything that comes after. Yet most plans skip this weighing entirely.
Read more →Making assumptions explicit: what has to be true for this plan to hold
Every plan rests on assumptions. The only question is whether they are written down or have crept in silently. Making assumptions explicit makes optimism testable.
Read more →