Back to Portfolio
Program · Data Modernization · 18 months

Governing an 18-month, fixed-fee data warehouse modernization program for a US FinTech enterprise.

A multi-project program migrating a legacy SQL Server data warehouse to the Modern Data Stack (Snowflake, dbt, Tableau). Designed around three non-negotiables: fixed term, fixed consultancy fees, and zero scope drift — defended by formal gateways, a parking-lot system, and an explicit change-control process.

RoleProgram Manager
Duration18 months
EngagementFixed-fee
Constituent ProjectsMultiple
Program ManagementModern Data StackSnowflake · dbt · TableauGovernanceChange ControlRAID ManagementC-level Stakeholder
01 — Strategic Objective & Key Results

One mandate. Three non-negotiables.

Migrate the data warehouse to the Modern Data Stack — and do it within the agreed 18 months and consultancy fees. Everything else in the program is in service of those three constraints.

< 5%
Cost variance
Budget/Cost Variance against the total agreed fees.
100%
Milestone rate
Completion across the macro-schedule phases.
> 98%
Data validation
Validation rate during the mandatory UAT phase.
0
Unmanaged scope
All scope additions routed through the formal CCP.
02 — Program Lifecycle

Three phases. Each ends at a contractual gateway.

The program is structured around the standard lifecycle — Initiation, Delivery, Closure — but with one twist: every phase boundary is also a formal control point. No phase advances until its deliverables are signed off, locking the scope behind it.

I.
Initiation

Define the boundary

Formal program kick-off, scope definition, and the crucial 18-month fixed-term acknowledgement. Core activity: data source mapping and dependency analysis.

~3 months · Migration Assessment · Migration Strategy · Way-of-Working

II.
Delivery

Execute & validate

Migration begins with PoC to validate the approach and refine estimates, then iterates through agile cycles. Mandatory UAT with client Data Analysts gates every release.

~13 months · Migrated DW · Validated quality · Decommissioned legacy

III.
Closure

Confirm adherence

Formal sign-off against the fixed mandate. Success is defined narrowly: full migration to Snowflake/dbt/Tableau within 18 months and within the agreed fees.

~2 months · Final report · Resource transition · Contract close-out

Infochart 01 · Master Schedule
18-month program lifecycle with phase gateways
Each gateway represents a formal sign-off — the prior phase's scope is locked, and the next phase cannot begin without it.
M1M3M5M7M9M11M13M15M17M18I · INITIATION~3 monthsKickoff · AssessmentStrategy · GovernanceII · DELIVERY~13 months · Migration · Validation · DecommissioningPoC · Wave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4 · UATIII · CLOSURE~2 monthsCutover · Sign-offFinal reportingG1Scope FreezeAssessment + Strategyapproved by SponsorG2Mid-Program ReviewCost variance, milestonerate, top-3 risksG3Validation LockUAT pass >98%;cutover authorizedG4CloseoutContract sign-offPhaseDelivery waveContractual gateway
03 — Governance Framework

A way-of-working built in four deliberate steps.

Before execution begins, the rules of execution are defined, presented, signed off, and then operated. Governance is not the byproduct of program management — it is the first deliverable of program management.

Infochart 02 · Way-of-Working Setup
From shared rules to enforced execution
Sequence · each step is a precondition for the next01DevelopmentDefine cadence,decision authority,reporting format —jointly with client.02PresentationFormally documentand present thecohesive WoW to allkey stakeholders.03Formal AgreementObtain sign-off fromclient PM — securescontractual commitmentto defined standards.04Execution & ReviewAdherence monitoredvia CV, milestone rate,and CR frequency;periodic review.Goal at each step01. Shared operational standards02. Transparency & common understanding03. Contractual commitment to adherence04. Effective control
04 — Change Control

How scope additions are handled — and how the fixed-fee contract is defended.

A fixed-fee, fixed-term program lives or dies by its change-control discipline. The program operates a strict three-step CCP, backed by a Parking Lot to capture anything ambiguous and Formal Gateways that lock prior phases against retroactive rework.

Infochart 03 · Change Control Process (CCP)
From scope-add request to sponsor decision
TriggerScope additionrequest from clientStep 01 · ImmediateRoute to CCPPark if ambiguous;never absorb silently.Step 02 · QuantifyImpact analysisEffort, timeline, fee delta— by BA + Eng.Step 03 · DecidePresent 3 optionsto C-level sponsorfor resolution.Option AAccept changeHigher cost.Longer timeline ifdelay pushes beyondthe 18-month term.Option B · PreferredSwap equivalentMaintain cost and timeby removing existingitems of equivalenteffort from scope.Option CPostponeDefer the requestto a follow-on engagementonce the 18-month programis formally closed.Defensive mechanisms supporting the CCPParking LotCapture every out-of-scopeitem; route to CCP evaluation.Formal GatewaysLock phases at completion;prior scope cannot be reopened.CR Frequency KPILeading indicator — high volumesignals stress on the contract.Quantification ruleNo CR is decided withoutexplicit effort + fee impact.
05 — Performance Monitoring

Four KPIs the C-level cares about — and nothing else on the dashboard.

Operational telemetry stays in the working teams. What rises to the sponsor is exactly what informs sponsor-level decisions: financial adherence, schedule adherence, quality, and the leading indicator of scope stress.

Infochart 04 · Executive KPI Dashboard
What the Head of Data sees, monthly
KPI 01 · Financial ControlBudget/Cost Variance (CV)< 5%targetTracks actual expenditure vs.the agreed consultancy fees.KPI 02 · ScheduleMilestone Completion Rate100%targetConfirms adherence to the18-month fixed term.KPI 03 · QualityData Validation Rate> 98%targetMeasured during UAT — gatesevery production release.KPI 04 · Scope ControlChange Request Frequencyleading indicatorHigh volume = stress on theCCP; trend monitored monthly.Supported by centralised RAID managementRRisksProactive mitigation;focus on fixed constraints.AAssumptionsBaseline premises;if invalidated → risk/issue.IIssuesReactive resolution; escalatedonly on schedule/fee impact.DDependenciesExternal constraints —source access, infra readiness.
06 — Stakeholder Management

Communicating with the sponsor means filtering, not flooding.

The Head of Data does not need standup blockers. The Head of Data needs to know whether the program is strategically on track, financially on track, and that the top risks are being handled. The communication model is built around that distinction.

Infochart 05 · Stakeholder Tiers
Who hears what, and how often
Tier 01 · StrategicClient Head of Data · C-level SponsorReceives: milestone status, CV, top-3 mitigated risks, gateway approvalsCadenceMonthly steering · Quarterly reviewEscalation on demand only whenfixed constraints are at riskTier 02 · TacticalJoint Management · Delivery PM + Client PMReceives: governance enforcement, CCP decisions, RAID review, vendor coordinationCadenceWeekly PM sync · Bi-weekly statusAll scope, schedule, and budget decisionsoriginate or pass through hereTier 03 · OperationalDelivery + Client Development TeamsReceives: sprint goals, technical decisions, UAT scheduling, blockersCadenceDaily standups · Sprint reviewsTechnical detail managed here;escalates only when impacting macro scheduleThe boundary between tiers is enforced — operational detail does not flow up uninvited,and strategic directives do not bypass tactical management.This boundary is what makes the program manageable at sponsor level without losing fidelity at execution level.
07 — Program Deliverables

The artifacts that carry the program — and the contract.

In a fixed-fee engagement, every artifact serves two audiences: the delivery team that operates against it, and the contract that's protected by it. Each output below was designed with both in mind.

Program Charter & Kick-off Pack
Formal program objectives, premises, the 18-month fixed-term constraint, and acknowledged contractual boundary.
Migration Assessment & Strategy
Data source map, dependency analysis, and the strategy document that defines the fixed contract boundary.
Governance Framework (Way-of-Working)
Four-step model: Development → Presentation → Formal Agreement → Execution & Review.
Change Control Process (CCP)
Three-step protocol — Route → Quantify → Decide — with Parking Lot and Formal Gateways as defenses.
Integrated Master Schedule
Cross-project dependency map; tracks shared resources, particularly Data Engineers and Data Analysts.
RAID Log & Control Register
Centralised Risks, Assumptions, Issues, Dependencies — owners, deadlines, and escalation criteria.
Executive KPI Dashboard
Four KPIs only: Cost Variance, Milestone Rate, Data Validation Rate, Change Request Frequency.
Stakeholder Management Plan
Three-tier model with defined cadence, content, and escalation criteria for each tier.

A program with a fixed term and fixed fees has exactly one job: protect both. Governance, change control, and stakeholder discipline are not overhead — they are the program.