WS 3 — Implementation Roadmap & Cost Estimate

Duration	2 weeks
Objective	Translate the target state architecture into an implementation roadmap identifying the sequencing, dependencies and milestones required to move from the current environment to the target state
Deliverables	D3.1 · D3.2 · D3.3

Tasks

ID	Activity (SOW Schedule "A")	Output	Status
WS3-A1	Define major implementation work streams and capabilities required to realize the target state	Work stream definitions	⚪
WS3-A2	Develop sequencing logic — business priorities, technical dependencies, organizational readiness, incremental value	Sequencing rationale	⚪
WS3-A3	Identify key dependencies across platforms, applications, integrations, data, identity, infrastructure and participating lines of business	Dependency map + diagram	⚪
WS3-A4	Identify critical path activities and key milestones	Critical path	⚪
WS3-A5	Define the phased implementation roadmap — initiatives, sequencing, dependencies, indicative timing	Roadmap + diagram	⚪
WS3-A6	Develop transition considerations for current to target state	Transition plan	⚪
WS3-A7	Identify key risks and constraints of the transition, with mitigation strategies	Risk register	⚪
WS3-A8	Create two implementation cost options — Konrad-owned delivery; co-delivery	D3.2	⚪
WS3-A9	Develop ROM implementation estimates for each option	ROM estimates + basis of estimate	⚪
WS3-A10	Prepare the executive summary of roadmap, options and recommended path forward	D3.3	⚪
WS3-A11	Conduct the executive readout	Readout · next steps · engagement close	⚪

Working notes

Three candidate spines, already written by the client

A2 does not start from nothing. Three artifacts in the client material already contain sequencing logic, and the roadmap will most likely be a reconciliation of them rather than a fourth invention:

• The strategy's seven workstreams across three phases, each with an owner and a layer, explicitly designed so none waits on the others.
• The assessment's nine conditions, already ordered by severity with 1–3 marked prerequisite to any further review.
• The experience map's build classification, separating promote-to-production from net-new build from procurement, zone by zone.

Reconciling three client-authored sequences into one is a much stronger position than presenting our own — it makes the roadmap theirs, and it makes disagreements visible instead of implicit.

Dependencies already visible

For A3, before any new analysis:

Dependency	Gates
SIT / UAT / PROD / DR Redis provisioning	Integration test, performance test, penetration test, DR drill
A non-production environment that exists	The mandatory authenticated penetration test
Volumetry and the FCC capacity answer	API strategy, cache design, NFR catalogue, performance test, and the cost estimate
NFR catalogue and signed SLOs	Anything that has to be tested against a number
Privacy Office position	Customer-facing release
Named accountable owner for the shared runtime	Incident response, cross-BU decisions, and the co-delivery cost option
CAUCE / CAUEX reconciliation	Evidencing what is actually built
Re-homing Readiness, Testing, GTM, Stabilization, Scale Planning	Launch readiness — currently owned by nobody

Risks to carry into A7

• Environment slippage — recorded in the client's own review as the programme's number-one schedule risk.
• The cancelled operational workstreams — cancelled in the CAUCE-to-CAUEX replan with no inheritor. A roadmap that does not re-home them repeats the mistake.
• Operating model as a gating dependency we cannot resolve — SOW §3.0 puts operating model design out of scope. We sequence around it and name it; we do not build it.
• Criticality tier unresolved — Gold versus Critical Digital Properties changes every recovery commitment by roughly an order of magnitude, and therefore the DR work in the roadmap.
• Cutover with no bypass — the dashboard replaces the only post-login route to every BU portal.

On the cost options

The co-delivery option's viability depends on Manulife staffing that the client's own material describes as absent — "no shared platform team funded to run them", and four components with no business-unit home. Price it, present it fairly, and name that dependency explicitly. A co-delivery number that quietly assumes a team which does not exist is not a cost option, it is a forecast of a slip.

Engagement close

A11 is the last event. Everything the engagement produced should be handed over in the agreed format at or before it — which requires the format question (open questions, item 1) to have been settled well before week six.