Last week's question — which of your programmes has a strong concept that does not fit? — only works if you have a structured way to answer it.
Most steering reviews don't. They start at the dashboard, ask for status updates, and end with action items that won't survive the next committee.
For six years, across six transformation programmes between 2019 and 2026, I've been shaping a different approach. It now has a name.
The Steering Audit.
Four weeks. Four layers. One classification.
The four layers, top to bottom:
• Dashboard. What gets reported, what gets watched, what gets ignored.
• Process. How forecasts, variances, and decisions actually move through the system.
• Governance. Who decides what, on which basis, with what authority.
• Logic. The implicit model of what success means and how the programme is supposed to get there.
Sequence matters. Most reviews start at the top and never reach the bottom. The Steering Audit works in the other direction.
At the end of four weeks, the programme is classified along two axes — Score (concept implementation) and Fit (organisational readiness). One of four positions. Each with a different next step.
It is not a maturity model. It is not a benchmark. It is a structured way to take stock of steering capability before the next big investment decision is made.
I'm currently shaping this with a small group of CFOs and programme leads. If you'd like to be part of the conversation, reply to this email.