A benefits realisation map directly connects the project’s work to the strategic goals the board cares about, showing how outputs lead to outcomes and ultimately organisational value. It moves beyond activity (option 1 and 4) or comparison (option 3) to demonstrate strategic contribution.

The professional response is to first understand the contractual rights and obligations. Validating the claim against the agreed index (option 3) is a fact-based, contractual approach. The other options involve premature actions (rejection, acceptance, or escalation) before establishing the facts.

True value for money assessment requires looking beyond headline price. Option 3 advocates for a rigorous analysis of total cost of ownership (including potential risk costs) and a formal assessment of the supplier’s ability to deliver, which is central to professional procurement practice at this level.

Overcoming resistance requires demonstrating value and aligning with the manager’s concerns (cost and complexity). Option 1 uses fear, option 3 avoids the issue, and option 4 undermines the policy. Option 2 directly addresses the cost objection with evidence of tangible benefits, making a compelling business case.

The primary professional goal is to restore performance and protect value delivery. While penalties (option 2), internal process review (option 3), and target reassessment (option 4) may be relevant later, the first priority is collaborative problem-solving to understand and fix the issue.

Strategic partnerships require a balanced, commercial (not just legal) approach to risk. Option 2 reflects the L6M9 principle of proportionality and aligning contractual governance with the relationship type. Options 1 and 4 represent extremes, while option 3 is naive for a formal strategic contract.

The standstill period (Alcatel period) is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions, notably under the EU procurement directives, designed to ensure transparency and provide a window for aggrieved bidders to seek review before the contract is concluded.

For high uncertainty and complexity, a relational contract (option 3) is designed to be flexible and foster collaboration towards shared outcomes, which is more effective than trying to rigidly control an unknown scope (options 1 & 2) or incurring the transaction costs of frequent re-tendering (option 4).

Option 1 is overly bureaucratic, option 3 neglects duty, and option 4 may not suit all local needs. Option 2 strikes the right balance: it empowers users with speed and convenience (addressing their need) while driving compliance, aggregating spend, and capturing data through a managed, efficient channel.

A benefits realisation map directly connects the project’s work to the strategic goals the board cares about, showing how outputs lead to outcomes and ultimately organisational value. It moves beyond activity (option 1 and 4) or comparison (option 3) to demonstrate strategic contribution.0