D3.3 · Executive roadmap and implementation presentation

Work stream	WS 3 — Implementation Roadmap & Cost Estimate
SOW source	Schedule "A", WS 3 deliverables, third bullet; §3 item 8
Status	⚪ Not started
Indicative window	Week 6 — the final engagement event

What the SOW asks for

Executive roadmap and implementation presentation

From WS 3 activities 10 and 11: "prepare executive summary of the roadmap, implementation options and recommended path forward" and "conduct executive readout to present the recommended roadmap, implementation options, and next steps."

Note the word recommended. D3.2 presents two costed options without prejudice; this deliverable takes a position on which one, and why. That is the last thing the engagement produces and the thing it is likely to be remembered for.

What it contains

1. Where things stand — the current position, honestly and briefly.
2. The target state — one architectural picture, carried over from D2.2 unchanged.
3. The roadmap — work streams, phasing, milestones, critical path.
4. What has to be true — dependencies and decisions the roadmap assumes, with owners.
5. The two implementation options — side by side, fairly.
6. The recommended path forward — a position, with the reasoning that supports it and the circumstances that would change it.
7. Next steps — what happens in the first thirty days, and who does it.

Where the content comes from

Assembled entirely from D3.1, D3.2 and D2.2. No new analysis. If something appears here that is not in a deliverable behind it, one of the two is wrong.

Diagrams

The roadmap and dependency diagrams from D3.1, in presentation mode or exported. The target state diagram from D2.1, unchanged from the version the client already reviewed — showing an executive audience a diagram that differs from the one their architects signed off is how credibility is lost.

If diagram versions have been cut at each stakeholder session, the timeline pages become useful in their own right at this readout: they show, per revision, what changed after whose feedback and whether the change was structural or cosmetic. That is a strong answer to "did you actually listen to the business units?"

The audience problem

This deck goes in front of executives who have most likely already seen the readiness review and its NO GO verdict. Whatever we present lands in that context, and there are two ways to get it wrong.

Contradicting the client's own architecture function without acknowledging it reads as either naive or commercially motivated. Simply restating their findings adds nothing they did not already have.

The useful position is the one neither existing document takes: the estate is in better functional shape than the review's verdict suggests — roughly 80% of the target UI is already powered by production APIs across a mature, enumerated gateway estate — and the control, resilience and governance gaps the review identifies are real and are what a target state architecture and a sequenced roadmap exist to close. Both halves, in that order.

Format

Same open question as D2.2, and it must be settled before then — this readout is the last event in the engagement, and discovering the format question in week six is discovering it too late. Tracked as item 3 in open questions.

Acceptance

Delivered at the executive readout. Written acceptance per SOW §5 closes the engagement's deliverables.