A programme can remain active long after its original delivery case has stopped being credible. Continued activity, committed expenditure and regular governance do not prove that outcomes remain achievable. Leaders need an independent view of viability, the causes of deterioration and the intervention that the evidence supports.
Enigma sits on the client’s side of the table. Our programme health checks and recovery assurance help SROs, programme boards, local authorities and SMEs determine whether to continue, continue with conditions, reset or stop. The work is evidence-led, proportionate to the decision and independent of the people who directly own delivery.
The problem: programmes can report progress without proving viability
Programmes rarely fail in one moment. Confidence erodes through repeated reforecasting, unresolved dependencies, optimistic status, unclear accountability, quality problems, supplier disagreement and decisions that are deferred rather than resolved. A programme may still be completing tasks while its critical path, operating model, benefits case or acceptance route is no longer credible.
Internal teams are often too close to the history, pressures and compromises to provide an unconstrained conclusion. Suppliers can explain their own position, but cannot independently assure the whole client outcome. A board can therefore receive a large volume of reporting without getting a reliable answer to the central question: is the programme still viable?
The control gap
Routine programme controls are designed to manage delivery. They do not automatically test whether the delivery system itself remains credible. Status packs may summarise symptoms without testing root causes. Recovery plans may list additional actions without showing that capacity, dependencies, quality and decision rights have changed enough to make the forecast achievable.
The gap is an independent, multidisciplinary assessment that connects outcome viability, governance, integrated planning, supplier performance, quality, architecture, migration, cutover and operational acceptance. Without that connection, individual workstreams can each appear manageable while the overall programme remains exposed.
When to commission a health check
- Key milestones have moved repeatedly or forecasts no longer reconcile with demonstrated progress.
- Board reporting is contested, inconsistent or too high level to support a decision.
- Several suppliers or client teams disagree about ownership, dependencies or completion.
- Quality, data migration, cutover or operational readiness is lagging behind reported delivery.
- A new SRO, programme director or board needs an independent baseline.
- A recovery plan exists, but its assumptions and achievability have not been tested.
- Further commitment of time or money requires a defensible continue, reset or stop decision.
The Enigma health-check method
We use the evidence-to-decision discipline set out in How We Assure. The review is shaped around the governance decision, rather than a generic maturity assessment or a long catalogue of observations.
- Frame the decision. We agree what decision must be made, its timing, the relevant outcomes and the client’s tolerance for uncertainty.
- Reconstruct the baseline. We establish the approved scope, benefits, schedule, cost, operating assumptions, acceptance conditions and material commitments.
- Collect decision-grade evidence. We request the records needed to test current status, forecast credibility and unresolved exposure.
- Test programme viability. We examine outcomes, governance, integrated delivery, quality, technical constraints, migration, cutover, operational readiness and supplier dependencies.
- Identify root causes. We separate symptoms from the control failures, decisions, capacity constraints and behaviours sustaining them.
- Conclude and condition. We state whether the evidence supports continuation, conditional continuation, reset or stop, and what must be true for confidence to improve.
Evidence required
The evidence set is proportionate to the programme and decision. It commonly includes the business case, outcomes and benefits measures, approved scope, integrated plan, financial forecast, governance terms, decision log, RAID records, supplier obligations, delivery metrics, resource plan, quality and test evidence, architecture decisions, data migration evidence, cutover plan, operational acceptance criteria and previous assurance findings.
We test whether evidence is current, traceable, internally consistent and sufficient for the claim it supports. Missing or contradictory evidence is made visible as uncertainty. It is not concealed by an averaged rating or an unsupported confidence statement.
From diagnosis to a credible recovery
A recovery plan is credible only if it changes the conditions that caused the programme to deteriorate. Extending dates, adding meetings or increasing reporting does not by itself restore viability. Recovery must address root causes, establish a controlled baseline, clarify authority, secure realistic capacity, resolve dependencies and define evidence-based exit conditions.
Where supplier performance is central, we connect the review to Supplier Delivery Assurance. Where acceptance and defect exposure drive the forecast, we use Quality and Test Assurance. Migration and operational transition are assessed through Data Migration and Cutover Assurance. This is one multidisciplinary assurance capability, not a catalogue of separate contractors.
Outputs
- An executive viability conclusion aligned to the decision required.
- A confidence assessment showing supported claims, uncertainty and evidence gaps.
- A concise account of root causes, material exposures and interdependencies.
- A prioritised set of interventions with owners and required closure evidence.
- Conditions for continuing, resetting or entering recovery.
- A recovery control framework with decision points, tolerances and assurance gates where needed.
- An evidence trail suitable for subsequent board review and closure verification.
Review the Independent Assurance Readiness Checklist before commissioning. A Sample Independent Assurance Report shows the intended relationship between evidence, findings and decisions. More practical material is available in Resources.
Decision value
The health check gives accountable leaders a defensible basis for intervention. It clarifies whether the current plan is credible, which risks are material, what uncertainty remains and which conditions must be met before further commitment. It also creates a common evidence baseline across the client and suppliers, reducing debate driven by incompatible status narratives.
Enigma does not take ownership of the recovery plan and then assure its own work. Delivery accountability remains with the client and its suppliers. Where Enigma supports recovery leadership, subsequent independent assurance is separated through scope, personnel and reporting lines.
Commission a programme health check
An initial conversation establishes the decision, urgency, programme boundary, supplier landscape, available evidence and known conflicts. We then propose a focused review that can range from one critical decision to a broader viability and recovery assessment.
Discuss a programme health check or recovery review. If the immediate requirement is a wider independent view across delivery, start with Independent Delivery Assurance.