From “Approved in Principle” to “Ready to Execute”
Why Most Implementation Plans Fail Before They Start
The amateur consultant approach:
After executive approval: “Great, you approved the program! We’ll start Phase 1 next week. I’ll send a project plan.”
[Sends 3-page Gantt chart with activities and dates. No detail on who does what, how decisions get made, what success looks like, or how to handle problems. Team shows up Week 1 confused. Consultant wings it. Project immediately off track.]
Result: Chaos from Day 1. Scope creep. Missed deadlines. Budget overruns. Finger-pointing.
The professional consultant approach:
After executive approval: “Excellent. Before we start, I’ll prepare detailed implementation proposals for each project within the program. Each proposal will specify scope, objectives, deliverables, roles and responsibilities with named individuals, week-by-week activities, decision-making authority, success metrics, risk mitigation, communication plan, and acceptance criteria. We’ll review these with the working team and get alignment before kickoff.”
[Delivers comprehensive project charters—18 pages each—covering every aspect of execution. Team knows exactly what they’re doing, when, with whom, and how. Kickoff is smooth. Everyone aligned. Project proceeds systematically.]
Result: Controlled execution. Clear accountability. Predictable progress. Successful delivery.
What “Detailed Implementation Proposals” Actually Means
After the executive presentation gets approved, you have approval IN PRINCIPLE for a program (e.g., “Customer Onboarding Transformation”). But that program consists of multiple discrete PROJECTS that need to be executed.
For our Customer Onboarding example:
- Program: Customer Onboarding Transformation (16 weeks, $435K, 3 phases)
- Phase 1 Projects: Process Standardization, Template Development, Pilot Design
- Phase 2 Projects: Workflow Platform Implementation, Salesforce Integration, Customer Portal Development, Change Management Rollout
- Phase 3 Projects: AI Chatbot Development, Predictive Analytics, Optimization
Each project needs a detailed implementation proposal (also called Project Charter, Project Brief, or Statement of Work).
A Detailed Implementation Proposal is a comprehensive specification document that:
- Defines scope (what’s IN, what’s OUT, boundaries)
- Establishes objectives (what success looks like, measurable)
- Lists deliverables (specific outputs, acceptance criteria)
- Assigns roles (who does what, RACI matrix with names)
- Maps timeline (week-by-week activities, milestones, dependencies)
- Identifies risks (what could go wrong, mitigation plans)
- Sets governance (decision authority, escalation, status reporting)
- Defines success metrics (how we measure and track progress)
- Plans communications (who needs to know what, when, how)
- Establishes budget (detailed cost breakdown, approval authority)
Length: Typically 15-25 pages per project
The goal: Remove all ambiguity about HOW the project will execute.
The Implementation Proposal Framework
Standard Structure (Consistent Across All Projects)
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL TEMPLATE │
│ (15-25 Pages Per Project) │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (1 page)
├─ Project name and purpose
├─ Scope summary (one sentence)
├─ Duration and budget
├─ Key deliverables
└─ Success criteria
SECTION 2: PROJECT OVERVIEW (2-3 pages)
├─ Background and context
├─ Problem this project solves
├─ Alignment to program objectives
├─ Dependencies on other projects
└─ Critical success factors
SECTION 3: SCOPE DEFINITION (2-3 pages)
├─ In-scope (specific inclusions)
├─ Out-of-scope (explicit exclusions)
├─ Assumptions
├─ Constraints
└─ Scope change control process
SECTION 4: OBJECTIVES & SUCCESS CRITERIA (1-2 pages)
├─ Primary objectives (3-5 specific goals)
├─ Success metrics (quantified, measurable)
├─ Acceptance criteria (how we know it's done)
└─ Definition of "done"
SECTION 5: DELIVERABLES (2-3 pages)
├─ Deliverable #1: [Name]
│ ├─ Description
│ ├─ Format/specifications
│ ├─ Acceptance criteria
│ └─ Due date
├─ Deliverable #2-N: [Same structure]
└─ Deliverable acceptance process
SECTION 6: PROJECT ORGANIZATION (2-3 pages)
├─ Project governance structure
├─ Roles and responsibilities (RACI)
├─ Team members (named individuals with % allocation)
├─ Decision-making authority
└─ Escalation path
SECTION 7: WORK PLAN & TIMELINE (3-4 pages)
├─ Project phases/milestones
├─ Week-by-week activity schedule
├─ Resource allocation by week
├─ Dependencies (internal and external)
├─ Critical path
└─ Gantt chart or visual timeline
SECTION 8: RISK MANAGEMENT (2-3 pages)
├─ Risk identification (5-10 top risks)
├─ Risk assessment (likelihood × impact)
├─ Mitigation strategies (for each risk)
├─ Risk ownership (who monitors)
└─ Contingency plans
SECTION 9: BUDGET & RESOURCE PLAN (1-2 pages)
├─ Detailed cost breakdown
├─ Resource requirements (people, tools, materials)
├─ Budget authority and approval process
└─ Cost tracking and reporting
SECTION 10: COMMUNICATION PLAN (1-2 pages)
├─ Stakeholder communication matrix
├─ Status reporting cadence
├─ Meeting schedule
├─ Communication channels
└─ Escalation procedures
SECTION 11: QUALITY ASSURANCE (1 page)
├─ Quality standards
├─ Testing approach
├─ Review process
└─ Acceptance criteria validation
SECTION 12: CHANGE MANAGEMENT (1-2 pages)
├─ Change control process
├─ Impact assessment
├─ Approval requirements
└─ Communication of changes
APPENDICES:
├─ A: Detailed requirements
├─ B: Technical specifications
├─ C: Templates and tools
└─ D: References and supporting documents
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TOTAL: 15-25 pages (varies by project complexity)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Example: Detailed Implementation Proposal for “Salesforce Integration Project”
Let’s build a complete, real-world implementation proposal.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IMPLEMENTATION PROPOSAL
Salesforce → Workflow Tool Integration Project
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Program: Customer Onboarding Transformation
Phase: Phase 2
Version: 1.2
Date: [Date]
Prepared by: [Consultant Name, Firm]
Approved by: [To be signed]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PROJECT NAME:
Salesforce-to-Workflow Integration
PURPOSE:
Eliminate manual customer data entry by creating real-time, automated
synchronization between Salesforce (where deals close) and the workflow
management platform (where onboarding is managed).
SCOPE:
Bi-directional integration between Salesforce and [Workflow Platform],
triggered on Opportunity stage change to "Closed Won," with automated
customer record creation, field mapping for 22 data points, error
handling, and monitoring.
DURATION:
6 weeks (Weeks 5-10 of Phase 2)
BUDGET:
$45,000 total
├─ Integration development: $28,000
├─ Testing and QA: $8,000
├─ Project management: $6,000
└─ Contingency (15%): $3,000
KEY DELIVERABLES:
✓ Integration architecture design document
✓ Salesforce → Workflow integration (production-ready)
✓ Error handling and monitoring system
✓ Integration documentation and runbook
✓ User training materials
SUCCESS CRITERIA:
✓ 100% of Closed Won deals auto-create workflow projects within 5 min
✓ Data accuracy rate >98% (validated against Salesforce source)
✓ Zero manual data entry required for 22 mapped fields
✓ Error rate <2% with automated alerting
✓ CSR time savings: 20 min per customer × 288/year = 96 hours/year
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 2: PROJECT OVERVIEW
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
BACKGROUND:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Current state:
When a Sales rep closes a deal in Salesforce (marks Opportunity as
"Closed Won"), they manually email the Customer Success Manager with
customer details. The CS Manager assigns a CSR, who then manually
enters customer information into the CS workflow tool—a process taking
20 minutes per customer with a 15% error rate.
This manual handoff results in:
• 96 hours/year of wasted labor ($4,800)
• 2-24 hour delay in CS team being notified
• 15% data entry errors requiring rework
• 18% of customers "falling through cracks" (no assignment)
• Information loss at handoff (Sales context not captured)
PROBLEM THIS PROJECT SOLVES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
This integration eliminates the manual handoff by automatically:
1. Detecting when a deal closes in Salesforce
2. Extracting relevant customer and deal data
3. Creating an onboarding project in workflow tool
4. Populating all required fields
5. Assigning to appropriate CSR based on routing rules
6. Notifying CSR via email and in-app
Benefits:
✓ Zero manual data entry (eliminates 96 hrs/year waste)
✓ Instant handoff (within 5 minutes vs. hours/days)
✓ Eliminates data entry errors (15% → <2%)
✓ No customers fall through cracks (100% capture)
✓ Preserves Sales context (complete information transfer)
ALIGNMENT TO PROGRAM OBJECTIVES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
This project addresses Root Cause #2 from the program-level analysis:
"No system integration between Salesforce and CS Tool."
It directly supports Program Objective #2:
"Reduce onboarding cycle time from 35 days to 15 days through
automation and integration."
This integration is the CRITICAL PATH item for Phase 2 success.
Without it, Phase 2 benefits are not achievable.
DEPENDENCIES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PREREQUISITES (must be complete before this project starts):
✓ Workflow platform selected and procured (Week 3-4)
✓ Salesforce custom fields documented (Phase 1)
✓ Customer data model defined (Phase 1)
✓ CSR routing rules defined (Phase 1)
DEPENDENCIES ON THIS PROJECT (blocked until this completes):
→ Customer Portal Development (needs integration to display data)
→ Automated Email Notifications (triggered by integration events)
→ Manager Dashboard (displays integrated data)
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1. Complete and accurate Salesforce field mapping
2. Salesforce API access and authentication secured
3. Workflow platform API capabilities sufficient
4. Data quality in Salesforce (required fields complete)
5. IT team availability for development and testing
6. Sales team cooperation for testing
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 3: SCOPE DEFINITION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
IN SCOPE:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✓ Salesforce → Workflow Platform Integration
└─ Real-time trigger on Opportunity stage = "Closed Won"
└─ Automated project creation in workflow tool
└─ Field mapping for 22 data points (see Appendix A)
└─ CSR assignment based on defined routing rules
└─ Error handling and retry logic
└─ Integration monitoring and alerting
✓ Workflow Platform → Salesforce Update (Limited)
└─ Update Salesforce Opportunity with workflow project link
└─ One-way status sync: "Onboarding Complete" → Opp field
✓ Data Quality Validation
└─ Salesforce validation rules for required fields
└─ Pre-flight data quality checks before handoff
└─ Error messaging to Sales if data incomplete
✓ Testing
└─ Unit testing (individual components)
└─ Integration testing (end-to-end flow)
└─ User acceptance testing (5 Sales reps, 3 CSRs)
└─ Production smoke testing (first 3 go-lives monitored)
✓ Documentation
└─ Integration architecture diagram
└─ Field mapping specification
└─ Error handling procedures
└─ Operations runbook (for IT support)
└─ User-facing FAQ
✓ Training
└─ Sales team: How to ensure data quality
└─ CS team: How to handle integration errors
└─ IT team: How to monitor and troubleshoot
OUT OF SCOPE (EXPLICITLY EXCLUDED):
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
✗ Historical data migration
└─ Integration applies to NEW deals only (post go-live)
└─ No backfill of historical customers into workflow tool
└─ Rationale: Historical customers managed in legacy process
✗ Product catalog synchronization
└─ Products list will be manual dropdown in workflow tool
└─ Not syncing Salesforce product catalog
└─ Rationale: Product data model complex, out of Phase 2 scope
✗ Bi-directional contact information sync
└─ If CS updates customer email, does NOT sync back to SF
└─ Salesforce remains source of truth for contact data
└─ Rationale: Reduces complexity, prevents circular updates
✗ Integration with other Salesforce objects
└─ Only Opportunity and Account objects included
└─ Not: Leads, Cases, Tasks, Custom Objects
└─ Rationale: Not needed for onboarding use case
✗ Salesforce workflow automation changes
└─ Not modifying Salesforce workflows, validation rules (beyond
required field checks), or page layouts
└─ Rationale: Minimize Salesforce changes, reduce risk
✗ Custom Salesforce reports/dashboards
└─ Reporting happens in workflow tool, not Salesforce
└─ Rationale: Out of scope for this project
✗ Mobile integration
└─ Integration works via APIs, not optimized for mobile
└─ Rationale: Not required for Phase 2
ASSUMPTIONS:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1. Salesforce API access will be granted within 2 business days
2. Workflow platform supports webhook triggers (confirmed in eval)
3. IT team developer available 30 hours/week for 6 weeks
4. Salesforce data quality >85% at launch (required fields complete)
5. No major Salesforce version upgrades during project timeline
6. Sales Operations team available for UAT (5 hours over 2 weeks)
7. Integration platform (if needed) has adequate API call limits
8. Network connectivity between systems is reliable
9. Authentication via OAuth 2.0 (Salesforce standard)
10. Workflow platform production environment available Week 5
CONSTRAINTS:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
• Must launch by Week 10 (Phase 2 timeline constraint)
• Budget ceiling: $45,000 (cannot exceed without approval)
• Cannot modify Salesforce custom objects (IT policy)
• Must pass security review (InfoSec approval required)
• API rate limits: Salesforce (10,000 calls/day), Workflow (varies)
• Development environment: Must use Sandbox, not Production
• Testing window: Maximum 2 weeks (Sales team availability)
SCOPE CHANGE CONTROL PROCESS:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Any scope changes require:
1. INITIATION: Requester submits change request form
└─ What: Description of requested change
└─ Why: Business justification
└─ Impact: Estimated time/cost/risk impact
2. ASSESSMENT: Project Manager evaluates
└─ Technical feasibility (consult developer)
└─ Time impact (days added to timeline)
└─ Cost impact (budget increase needed)
└─ Risk impact (new risks introduced)
3. APPROVAL: Based on impact level
└─ Minor (<$2K, <3 days): Project Lead approves
└─ Medium ($2K-$10K, 3-7 days): Steering Committee approves
└─ Major (>$10K, >7 days): Executive Sponsor approves
4. DOCUMENTATION: Update project plan, budget, scope doc
5. COMMUNICATION: Notify all stakeholders of approved change
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 4: OBJECTIVES & SUCCESS CRITERIA
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PRIMARY OBJECTIVES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
OBJECTIVE 1: Eliminate Manual Data Entry
└─ Target: Zero manual data entry for 22 mapped fields
└─ Baseline: 20 minutes per customer × 288/year = 96 hours/year
└─ Success: <5 minutes total (review/validation only)
└─ Measurement: Time study post-launch (sample 10 customers)
OBJECTIVE 2: Achieve High Data Accuracy
└─ Target: >98% data accuracy (comparing Workflow to Salesforce)
└─ Baseline: 85% accuracy (15% error rate manual entry)
└─ Success: <2% error rate requiring correction
└─ Measurement: Audit 50 integrated records weekly (first month)
OBJECTIVE 3: Enable Instant Handoff
└─ Target: <5 minutes from "Closed Won" to CSR notification
└─ Baseline: 2.3 days average (manual email process)
└─ Success: 95% of integrations complete within 5 minutes
└─ Measurement: System logs track end-to-end timing
OBJECTIVE 4: Prevent Customer Loss
└─ Target: 100% of Closed Won deals create workflow projects
└─ Baseline: 18% fall through cracks (no CS assignment)
└─ Success: 0% missed handoffs (with alerts for failures)
└─ Measurement: Reconciliation report (SF Closed Won vs. Workflow)
OBJECTIVE 5: Maintain System Reliability
└─ Target: 99.5% uptime and successful integration rate
└─ Baseline: N/A (new integration)
└─ Success: <0.5% failure rate, <2 hour downtime per month
└─ Measurement: Integration monitoring dashboard
SUCCESS METRICS (Tracked Monthly):
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
OPERATIONAL METRICS:
┌────────────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ Metric │ Baseline │ Target │ Threshold │
├────────────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│ Integration success rate │ N/A │ 99.5% │ >95% │
│ Avg integration time │ N/A │ <3 min │ <5 min │
│ Data accuracy rate │ 85% │ >98% │ >95% │
│ Failed integrations/month │ N/A │ 0 │ <2 │
│ Manual data entry time │ 20 min │ <5 min │ <10 min │
└────────────────────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
BUSINESS METRICS:
┌────────────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ Metric │ Baseline │ Target │ Threshold │
├────────────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│ Time to CSR notification │ 2.3 days │ <1 hr │ <4 hrs │
│ Customers falling through │ 18% │ 0% │ <5% │
│ Annual labor hours saved │ 0 │ 96 hrs │ >70 hrs │
│ Error-related rework │ 43/year │ <6/yr │ <12/yr │
└────────────────────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
TECHNICAL METRICS:
┌────────────────────────────┬──────────┬─────────┬───────────┐
│ Metric │ Baseline │ Target │ Threshold │
├────────────────────────────┼──────────┼─────────┼───────────┤
│ API call volume/day │ 0 │ <500 │ <1000 │
│ Integration latency │ N/A │ <2 min │ <5 min │
│ Error rate │ N/A │ <2% │ <5% │
│ System uptime │ N/A │ 99.9% │ >99% │
└────────────────────────────┴──────────┴─────────┴───────────┘
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The integration is considered COMPLETE and ACCEPTED when:
✓ FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS MET:
1. Integration triggers correctly on Opp stage = "Closed Won"
2. All 22 mapped fields transfer accurately (see Appendix A)
3. CSR assignment logic works per defined rules
4. Notifications sent to assigned CSR
5. Error handling catches and logs failures
6. Retry logic attempts 3× before alerting
7. Monitoring dashboard shows real-time status
✓ QUALITY REQUIREMENTS MET:
8. UAT completed with zero critical bugs
9. Data accuracy validated at >98% (audit of 50 records)
10. Performance meets <5 minute SLA (test with 20 transactions)
11. Security review passed (InfoSec sign-off)
12. Code review completed (peer review by senior dev)
✓ DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS MET:
13. Architecture diagram approved by CTO
14. Field mapping document finalized
15. Operations runbook delivered to IT Support
16. User FAQ published in knowledge base
17. Training materials delivered
✓ TRAINING REQUIREMENTS MET:
18. Sales team trained (15 people, 1-hour session)
19. CS team trained (8 CSRs, 1-hour session)
20. IT support trained (3 people, 2-hour session)
✓ STAKEHOLDER APPROVAL:
21. CTO sign-off (technical architecture)
22. VP Sales sign-off (Sales team impact acceptable)
23. VP CS sign-off (CS team ready to use)
24. Project Sponsor sign-off (overall acceptance)
DEFINITION OF "DONE":
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Integration is DONE when:
1. All acceptance criteria met (24 items above)
2. Production go-live completed successfully
3. First 10 production integrations monitored with zero failures
4. 30-day post-launch stability period completed
5. Knowledge transfer to IT Support completed
6. Project closed and lessons learned documented
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 5: DELIVERABLES
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DELIVERABLE 1: Integration Architecture Design
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Comprehensive technical design document specifying integration
architecture, data flows, authentication, error handling, and
monitoring approach.
CONTENTS:
• System architecture diagram (high-level and detailed)
• Integration pattern selection rationale
• Data flow diagrams (Salesforce → Workflow)
• Authentication and security approach (OAuth 2.0)
• API specifications and endpoints
• Error handling and retry logic design
• Monitoring and alerting design
• Scalability considerations
• Disaster recovery approach
FORMAT: PDF document (15-20 pages) + Visio/Draw.io diagrams
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ Reviewed and approved by CTO
✓ Addresses all technical risks identified in risk register
✓ Includes security review from InfoSec
✓ Specifies all APIs and integration points
✓ Peer-reviewed by senior developer
DUE DATE: End of Week 1 (Week 5 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Technical Lead (Senior Developer)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 2: Field Mapping Specification
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Detailed specification of all 22 fields to be mapped from Salesforce
to Workflow platform, including data types, transformation rules,
validation logic, and default values.
CONTENTS:
• Field mapping table (see Appendix A for structure)
- Salesforce field name and object
- Workflow platform field name and type
- Transformation rules (if any)
- Validation rules
- Required vs. optional
- Default values
- Error handling for missing/invalid data
• Data quality requirements
• Test cases for each field mapping
FORMAT: Excel spreadsheet + PDF documentation
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ All 22 fields documented with complete specifications
✓ Validated with Sales Operations (Salesforce side)
✓ Validated with CS team (Workflow platform side)
✓ Test cases defined for each field
✓ Edge cases and error scenarios documented
DUE DATE: End of Week 1 (Week 5 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Project Manager with input from Sales Ops and CS
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 3: Integration Code (Production-Ready)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Fully functional, tested integration code deployed to production
environment and ready for live use.
COMPONENTS:
• Salesforce Apex trigger (on Opportunity update)
OR webhook configuration (if using integration platform)
• API authentication module (OAuth 2.0)
• Data extraction and transformation logic
• Workflow platform API calls (project creation)
• Error handling and retry logic (3 attempts)
• Logging and monitoring instrumentation
• Unit tests (>80% code coverage)
• Integration tests (end-to-end scenarios)
TECHNICAL STACK:
[Specify based on chosen approach - examples:]
• Option A: Native Salesforce → Platform connector
• Option B: Middleware (Zapier, Workato, MuleSoft)
• Option C: Custom API integration (Python/Node.js)
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ All unit tests pass (>80% coverage)
✓ All integration tests pass (10 test scenarios)
✓ Code review completed (peer review)
✓ Security scan passed (no critical vulnerabilities)
✓ Performance testing completed (handles 50 transactions/day)
✓ Deployed to production environment
✓ Production smoke test completed (3 live transactions)
DUE DATE: End of Week 4 (Week 8 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Technical Lead (Senior Developer)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 4: Error Handling & Monitoring System
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Automated system for detecting, logging, and alerting on integration
errors, plus dashboard for real-time monitoring of integration health.
COMPONENTS:
• Error detection logic (within integration code)
• Error logging database/system
• Retry mechanism (exponential backoff, 3 attempts)
• Alert notifications:
- Email to IT Support for critical errors
- Slack notification for failures
- Dashboard warning indicators
• Monitoring dashboard showing:
- Integration success rate (last 24 hrs, 7 days, 30 days)
- Failed integrations (with details)
- Average integration time
- API call volume
- System health status
• Reconciliation report (daily):
- Salesforce Closed Won Opps vs. Workflow Projects created
- Identifies any missed integrations
FORMAT:
• Monitoring dashboard (web-based, real-time)
• Daily reconciliation report (email, automated)
• Error log database (searchable)
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ Errors logged with sufficient detail for troubleshooting
✓ Alerts sent within 5 minutes of failure
✓ Dashboard accessible to IT Support and CS Manager
✓ Reconciliation report runs daily at 7 AM
✓ False positive rate <1% (doesn't alert unnecessarily)
DUE DATE: End of Week 4 (Week 8 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Technical Lead (Senior Developer)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 5: Operations Runbook
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Comprehensive guide for IT Support team to monitor, troubleshoot,
and maintain the integration post-launch.
CONTENTS:
• Integration overview (how it works)
• Monitoring procedures
- How to access monitoring dashboard
- What metrics to watch
- Normal vs. abnormal patterns
• Troubleshooting guide
- Common errors and solutions
- How to investigate failed integrations
- How to manually retry failed integration
- When to escalate
• Maintenance procedures
- How to pause/resume integration (if needed)
- How to update field mappings
- How to handle Salesforce changes
• Contact information
- Technical Lead (for escalation)
- Salesforce Administrator
- Workflow Platform vendor support
• Appendix: Technical details
- API endpoints
- Authentication details
- Database schemas
- Code repository location
FORMAT: Confluence page (living document) + PDF export
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ Reviewed and validated by IT Support team
✓ Includes all common error scenarios encountered in testing
✓ Troubleshooting steps validated (tested by IT Support)
✓ Contact information current and accurate
✓ Published in IT knowledge base
DUE DATE: End of Week 5 (Week 9 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Technical Lead with input from IT Support
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 6: User Training Materials
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Training materials for three audiences: Sales team (data quality),
CS team (how integration affects them), IT Support (operations).
MATERIALS:
• Sales Team Training (1 hour)
- Slide deck (15 slides)
- "Checklist: Ensure Data Quality Before Closing Deal"
- FAQ: "What happens when I close a deal?"
- Video tutorial: "Required fields walkthrough" (5 min)
• CS Team Training (1 hour)
- Slide deck (12 slides)
- "What changed: Old process vs. New process"
- FAQ: "What if integration fails?"
- Video tutorial: "Reviewing integrated customer data" (3 min)
• IT Support Training (2 hours)
- Slide deck (20 slides)
- Hands-on exercises (monitoring, troubleshooting)
- Operations runbook (see Deliverable 5)
FORMAT: PowerPoint slides, video (MP4), PDF checklists/FAQs
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ Materials reviewed by VP Sales (Sales materials)
✓ Materials reviewed by VP CS (CS materials)
✓ Materials reviewed by IT Manager (IT materials)
✓ Training sessions delivered and feedback incorporated
✓ Materials published in learning management system
DUE DATE: End of Week 5 (Week 9 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Change Manager (with input from Technical Lead)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DELIVERABLE 7: Go-Live Plan & Post-Launch Support
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
DESCRIPTION:
Detailed plan for production launch including pre-launch checklist,
launch activities, rollback procedures, and 30-day post-launch
support plan.
CONTENTS:
• Pre-launch checklist (25 items)
- UAT completed
- Security review passed
- Training delivered
- Monitoring in place
- Runbook published
- Stakeholders notified
- Rollback plan tested
- etc.
• Launch activities (Week 6, Day 1-5)
- Day 1: Enable integration for 3 test deals (controlled)
- Day 2: Monitor, validate, troubleshoot
- Day 3: Enable for all new deals (full production)
- Day 4-5: Heavy monitoring, rapid response
• Rollback procedures
- How to disable integration (emergency)
- How to revert to manual process
- Decision criteria for rollback
- Communication plan if rollback needed
• Post-launch support (30 days)
- Daily monitoring (first week)
- Weekly check-ins with CS team
- Monthly reconciliation and audit
- Issue tracking and resolution
- Continuous improvement opportunities
FORMAT: Project plan document (Word/PDF)
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA:
✓ Pre-launch checklist 100% complete before go-live
✓ Rollback plan tested in sandbox environment
✓ Support schedule confirmed with IT Support team
✓ Stakeholder communication plan executed
✓ Steering Committee approval to launch
DUE DATE: End of Week 5 (Week 9 of Phase 2)
Launch: Week 6 (Week 10 of Phase 2)
OWNER: Project Manager
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DELIVERABLE SUMMARY TABLE:
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Deliverable Owner Due Date Status
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
1. Architecture Design Tech Lead Wk 5 □
2. Field Mapping Spec PM Wk 5 □
3. Integration Code Tech Lead Wk 8 □
4. Error Handling/Monitoring Tech Lead Wk 8 □
5. Operations Runbook Tech Lead Wk 9 □
6. Training Materials Change Mgr Wk 9 □
7. Go-Live Plan PM Wk 9 □
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Continue with remaining sections…
[Due to length constraints, I’ll provide the framework for remaining sections. In practice, you’d complete all sections with same level of detail.]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 6: PROJECT ORGANIZATION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
[Diagram showing:]
Executive Sponsor (COO)
↓
Steering Committee (COO, CTO, VP CS, VP Sales, CFO)
↓
Project Lead (VP Customer Success)
↓
Project Manager (Consultant) ← → Working Team
↓
Core Team (Tech Lead, Change Manager, Sales Ops, CSR Reps)
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES (RACI MATRIX):
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Activity │Sponsor│Proj │Tech │Sales│CS │IT │
│ COO │Lead │Lead │Ops │Team│Supp│
───────────────────────────┼───────┼─────┼─────┼─────┼────┼────┤
Approve project scope │ A │ R │ C │ C │ C │ I │
Architecture design │ I │ A │ R │ C │ I │ C │
Field mapping spec │ I │ C │ C │ R │ C │ I │
Integration development │ I │ A │ R │ C │ I │ C │
UAT coordination │ I │ R │ C │ R │ R │ C │
Go-live decision │ A │ R │ C │ I │ I │ I │
Post-launch support │ I │ A │ C │ I │ I │ R │
R = Responsible (does the work)
A = Accountable (final authority)
C = Consulted (provides input)
I = Informed (kept in loop)
TEAM MEMBERS (Named Individuals):
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Executive Sponsor: Marcus Wei, COO
└─ Role: Final decision authority, removes roadblocks
└─ Time: 2 hours/week (steering committee, escalations)
Project Lead: Sarah Chen, VP Customer Success
└─ Role: Day-to-day leadership, stakeholder management
└─ Time: 8 hours/week (75% Week 1-2, 50% Week 3-6)
Project Manager: [Consultant Name], [Firm]
└─ Role: Planning, coordination, status, risk management
└─ Time: 25 hours/week (full project duration)
Technical Lead: Michael Torres, Senior Developer (Internal IT)
└─ Role: Integration design, development, testing
└─ Time: 30 hours/week (75% allocation)
Sales Operations: Jennifer Kim, Sales Operations Manager
└─ Role: Salesforce expertise, field mapping, UAT
└─ Time: 5 hours/week
CS Representatives:
- Alex Johnson, Senior CSR (4 years tenure) - Champion
- Maria Garcia, CSR (1 year tenure)
└─ Role: Requirements validation, UAT, feedback
└─ Time: 3 hours/week each
IT Support: David Park, IT Support Lead
└─ Role: Post-launch operations, monitoring
└─ Time: 5 hours/week (ramp up Week 5-6 for training)
Change Manager: [Consultant Name], [Firm]
└─ Role: Training development, user adoption
└─ Time: 10 hours/week
QA Engineer: Lisa Anderson, QA Engineer (Internal IT)
└─ Role: Testing coordination, UAT facilitation
└─ Time: 10 hours/week (primarily Week 3-5)
DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
LEVEL 1: Project Manager (Operational Decisions)
• Day-to-day prioritization
• Minor timeline adjustments (<2 days)
• Resource allocation within budget
Examples: "Move testing to Thursday instead of Wednesday"
LEVEL 2: Project Lead (Tactical Decisions)
• Scope clarifications (within defined scope)
• Minor scope additions (<$2K, <3 days)
• Vendor selection (within approved budget)
• UAT acceptance decisions
Examples: "Add one more field to mapping" (if small impact)
LEVEL 3: Steering Committee (Strategic Decisions)
• Scope changes ($2K-$10K, 3-7 days impact)
• Timeline extensions (>1 week)
• Budget increases (within contingency)
• Risk mitigation strategy changes
• Go/no-go launch decision
Examples: "Delay launch 1 week due to Salesforce outage"
LEVEL 4: Executive Sponsor (Major Decisions)
• Scope changes (>$10K, >7 days impact)
• Budget increases (beyond contingency)
• Project cancellation/pause
• Escalated risks requiring executive intervention
Examples: "Project needs additional $15K for unexpected middleware"
ESCALATION PATH:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Issue identified
↓
Project Manager (attempts resolution, 24 hours)
↓ (if unresolved)
Project Lead (escalates to appropriate stakeholders, 48 hours)
↓ (if unresolved)
Steering Committee (next scheduled meeting or emergency session)
↓ (if unresolved)
Executive Sponsor (immediate decision)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
SECTION 7: WORK PLAN & TIMELINE
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
PROJECT PHASES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PHASE 1: Design & Planning (Week 1-2)
PHASE 2: Development & Build (Week 2-4)
PHASE 3: Testing & Refinement (Week 4-5)
PHASE 4: Training & Preparation (Week 5-6)
PHASE 5: Go-Live & Stabilization (Week 6)
WEEK-BY-WEEK ACTIVITY SCHEDULE:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 1 (Week 5 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON:
• Project kickoff meeting (2 hours, all team)
• Confirm Salesforce API access (Tech Lead)
• Review field mapping draft (PM, Sales Ops, CS Rep)
TUE-WED:
• Architecture design (Tech Lead, 12 hours)
• Field mapping validation workshops (PM, Sales Ops, 4 hours)
• Set up development environment (Tech Lead, 4 hours)
THU-FRI:
• Finalize architecture document (Tech Lead)
• Finalize field mapping specification (PM, Sales Ops)
• Deliverables 1 & 2 review and approval
• Begin development (Tech Lead, initial setup)
DELIVERABLES DUE: Architecture Design, Field Mapping Spec
MILESTONE: Design Complete, Development Started
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 2 (Week 6 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON-FRI:
• Integration development (Tech Lead, 30 hours)
- Salesforce trigger/webhook configuration
- Authentication setup (OAuth 2.0)
- Data extraction logic
- Workflow platform API calls
• Unit testing (ongoing, Tech Lead)
• Daily standups (15 min, core team)
• Weekly status update (Friday, Project Manager)
DELIVERABLES: None (development in progress)
MILESTONE: 50% Development Complete
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 3 (Week 7 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON-WED:
• Complete integration development (Tech Lead, 20 hours)
- Error handling and retry logic
- Logging and instrumentation
• Unit testing completion (Tech Lead, 8 hours)
• Code review (Peer review, 4 hours)
THU-FRI:
• Integration testing setup (QA Engineer, 6 hours)
• Begin end-to-end integration testing (Tech Lead, QA, 8 hours)
• Test case execution (10 scenarios)
• Bug identification and logging
DELIVERABLES: None (testing in progress)
MILESTONE: Development Complete, Testing Started
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 4 (Week 8 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON-TUE:
• Bug fixes from integration testing (Tech Lead, 12 hours)
• Regression testing (QA Engineer, 6 hours)
• Monitoring dashboard development (Tech Lead, 6 hours)
WED:
• Security review submission (Tech Lead, PM)
• UAT environment setup (Tech Lead, 4 hours)
• UAT participant briefing (Change Manager, 2 hours)
THU-FRI:
• UAT execution (Sales Ops, CS Reps, 8 hours total)
• UAT observations and feedback (QA Engineer, PM)
• Minor refinements based on UAT (Tech Lead)
DELIVERABLES DUE: Integration Code, Error Handling/Monitoring
MILESTONE: Testing Complete, UAT Started
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 5 (Week 9 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON-TUE:
• Complete UAT (Sales Ops, CS Reps)
• Final bug fixes (Tech Lead, 8 hours)
• Security review approval (InfoSec sign-off)
• Operations runbook drafting (Tech Lead, 8 hours)
WED:
• Training material development (Change Manager, 8 hours)
• Runbook review with IT Support (Tech Lead, IT, 2 hours)
• Production deployment preparation
THU:
• Production deployment (Tech Lead, 4 hours)
• Production smoke testing (3 test transactions)
• Monitoring validation in production
FRI:
• Training session: IT Support (2 hours)
• Training session: CS Team (1 hour)
• Pre-launch checklist completion (PM)
• Steering Committee: Go-Live approval
DELIVERABLES DUE: Operations Runbook, Training Materials, Go-Live Plan
MILESTONE: Production Ready, Training Complete
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
WEEK 6 (Week 10 of Phase 2):
───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
MON:
• Training session: Sales Team (1 hour)
• Final communications to all stakeholders
• GO-LIVE: Enable integration for first 3 deals (controlled)
TUE:
• Monitor first 3 integrations closely
• Validate data accuracy
• Address any immediate issues
• Expand to all new deals (full production) if successful
WED-FRI:
• Heavy monitoring (Tech Lead, IT Support, 4 hours/day)
• Daily check-ins with CS team (PM, 30 min/day)
• Rapid issue response
• Daily status updates to Steering Committee
DELIVERABLES: None (go-live execution)
MILESTONE: LIVE IN PRODUCTION
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
DEPENDENCIES:
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
INTERNAL DEPENDENCIES (within this project):
• Week 2 development blocked until Week 1 design complete
• Week 4 UAT blocked until Week 3 testing complete
• Week 6 go-live blocked until Week 5 approvals obtained
EXTERNAL DEPENDENCIES (other projects):
• Workflow platform must be procured by Week 4 (Phase 2 Week 4)
• Workflow platform production environment ready by Week 5
• Phase 1 process standardization complete (provides routing rules)
• Salesforce Administrator available for UAT support
CRITICAL PATH:
Week 1 Design → Week 2-3 Development → Week 4 Testing →
Week 5 UAT/Approval → Week 6 Go-Live
Any delay on critical path delays overall project.
Non-critical path items: Training materials, runbook (can happen in parallel)
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
[Continue with Sections 8-12: Risk Management, Budget,
Communication Plan, Quality Assurance, Change Management,
and Appendices]
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
The Meta-Principle: Plans Are Worthless, But Planning Is Everything
Dwight D. Eisenhower said: “Plans are worthless, but planning is everything.”
This paradox captures the truth about implementation proposals:
The document itself has limited value once execution begins (things will change, adapt, evolve).
BUT the PROCESS of creating the document has immense value:
- Forces thinking through details (surfaces issues before they become problems)
- Creates shared understanding (team alignment on objectives, approach)
- Establishes baseline (can measure deviations, adjust intelligently)
- Assigns accountability (everyone knows their role)
- Provides decision framework (escalation, authority, scope control)
- Documents assumptions (can revisit when assumptions change)
The best implementation proposals are:
- ✅ Comprehensive (covers all aspects of execution)
- ✅ Specific (names, dates, numbers, not generalities)
- ✅ Realistic (accounts for constraints, complexity)
- ✅ Flexible (acknowledges things will change)
- ✅ Actionable (clear next steps, not theoretical)
Create detailed implementation proposals for each project. Get team alignment. Then execute with discipline while adapting intelligently.
That’s how programs succeed.
What concerns you most about implementation proposals? Level of detail? Time to create? Getting team buy-in? Balancing comprehensiveness with flexibility? Managing scope creep? Tracking against plan? When to update?