STD-GOV-135: Execution Framework Standard¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Standard | STD-GOV-135 |
| Title | Execution Framework |
| Status | Draft — for leadership offsite review |
| Owner | CDO |
| Created | 2026-04-05 |
| Review | Quarterly |
Purpose¶
Define a centralised execution framework that links strategy to delivery across all departments, functions and markets. Simpaisa's 2026 strategy identifies this as Foundational Support #1 ("Centralised execution backbone"), and Strategic Goal 2 calls for institutionalised execution and performance management.
Without a defined framework, initiatives are proposed informally, tracked inconsistently, and rarely formally closed. The result: persistent "in progress" work with no accountability for outcomes, scattered priorities, and strategy that exists on paper but not in execution.
This standard defines how initiatives are proposed, prioritised, approved, tracked, reviewed and closed across Simpaisa.
Scope¶
All strategic and operational initiatives across Simpaisa Holdings and operating entities. Covers: - Strategic initiatives aligned to the five strategic goals (SG1-SG5) - Cross-functional projects spanning multiple departments or markets - Departmental initiatives with budget, headcount or timeline commitments - Technical programmes (platform migration, security remediation, etc.)
Does not cover: day-to-day operational tasks, individual sprint planning, or bug fixes. Those are managed within teams using their own tools and cadences.
Current State¶
- No formal initiative intake process. Initiatives start via Slack, email, or verbal agreement.
- No central register of active initiatives across the company.
- No defined approval authority. Unclear who can commit resources to what.
- No consistent tracking. Some initiatives in Confluence, some in spreadsheets, some in people's heads.
- No formal review cadence. Progress reviews happen when someone asks.
- No closure discipline. Initiatives remain "in progress" indefinitely.
- No connection between strategy and delivery. The 2026 strategy has five goals but no mechanism to translate them into tracked, owned, time-bound initiatives.
Gaps¶
- No initiative lifecycle — work starts without approval and never formally closes.
- No prioritisation framework — everything is "high priority," which means nothing is.
- No central register — leadership cannot see what is in flight across the company.
- No resource visibility — impossible to know if a department is over-committed.
- No outcome tracking — initiatives are evaluated on effort ("we worked on it") not outcomes ("it achieved X").
- No connection to strategy — initiatives are not mapped to strategic goals.
Target State¶
A disciplined execution system where: - Every initiative is proposed, scored, and approved before work begins. - Every initiative maps to a strategic goal (SG1-SG5) or foundational support. - Every initiative has a named owner, success criteria, deadline, and status. - Leadership reviews progress fortnightly with authority to reprioritise, unblock or close. - Initiatives that do not demonstrate progress within one quarter are escalated or closed. - Completed initiatives produce documented outcomes and lessons learned.
Initiative Lifecycle¶
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ PROPOSED │───▶│ APPROVED │───▶│ ACTIVE │───▶│ CLOSING │───▶│ CLOSED │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘
│ │ │ │
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼
┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐
│ REJECTED │ │ DEFERRED │ │ BLOCKED │ │CANCELLED │
└──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘ └──────────┘
State Definitions¶
| State | Definition | Who Moves It |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed | Initiative submitted with business case. Not yet resourced or approved. | Anyone |
| Approved | Reviewed by leadership. Owner assigned. Resources committed. Not yet started. | Leadership Forum |
| Active | Work in progress. Regular status reporting required. | Initiative Owner |
| Blocked | Cannot progress. Blocker identified and escalated. | Initiative Owner |
| Closing | Work complete. Outcomes being assessed. Documentation in progress. | Initiative Owner |
| Closed | Outcomes assessed. Lessons learned captured. Standard/ADR produced if applicable. | Leadership Forum |
| Rejected | Reviewed and not approved. Rationale documented. | Leadership Forum |
| Deferred | Approved in principle but not resourced for this quarter. | Leadership Forum |
| Cancelled | Was active but stopped. Rationale and any partial outcomes documented. | Leadership Forum |
Transition Rules¶
Proposed → Approved/Rejected/Deferred: - Reviewed at the next Leadership Forum (fortnightly). - Requires: initiative brief (see template below), strategic alignment mapping, resource estimate. - Approval authority: CEO for cross-functional or >$10K budget. Department head for single-department, <$10K.
Approved → Active: - Owner confirms team, timeline, and first milestone. - Initiative added to the central register.
Active → Blocked: - Owner reports the blocker at the next Leadership Forum. - If unresolved for 2 weeks, escalated to CEO.
Active → Closing: - Owner declares work complete and submits outcome assessment.
Closing → Closed: - Leadership Forum reviews outcomes against success criteria. - Lessons learned documented. - If the initiative produced a new standard, ADR or process, it is added to the Architecture repo.
Active → Cancelled: - Can only be cancelled by Leadership Forum. - Rationale documented. Partial outcomes captured.
Quarterly staleness rule: Any initiative in "Active" or "Blocked" state for more than one quarter without a status update is automatically escalated to the Leadership Forum for review. The forum must decide: continue, reprioritise, or close.
Initiative Brief Template¶
Every proposed initiative must include:
INITIATIVE BRIEF
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Title: [descriptive name]
Proposer: [name, role]
Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Strategic Goal: [SG1/SG2/SG3/SG4/SG5 or Foundational Support #N]
PROBLEM STATEMENT
What problem does this solve? Who is affected? What happens if we do nothing?
[2-3 sentences. Concrete, not abstract.]
SUCCESS CRITERIA
How will we know this succeeded? What measurable outcome changes?
[Specific, measurable criteria. Not "improve X" but "reduce X from Y to Z".]
SCOPE
What is in scope? What is explicitly out of scope?
[Bullet points. Be precise about boundaries.]
RESOURCE ESTIMATE
- People: [N people, M% of their time, for Q weeks]
- Budget: [$ estimate, if any]
- Dependencies: [other initiatives or teams this depends on]
TIMELINE
- Start: [target date]
- Key milestones: [2-3 intermediate checkpoints]
- End: [target completion date]
RISKS
What could go wrong? What would cause this to fail or be delayed?
[1-3 specific risks with likelihood and impact]
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Prioritisation Framework¶
When multiple initiatives compete for limited resources, score each on four dimensions:
| Dimension | Weight | Scale | Question |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic alignment | 30% | 1-5 | How directly does this support the highest-priority strategic goal? |
| Risk reduction | 25% | 1-5 | Does this reduce a known critical or high risk? (Security, compliance, operational) |
| Revenue impact | 25% | 1-5 | Does this protect or grow revenue? (Direct revenue, cost avoidance, market access) |
| Execution feasibility | 20% | 1-5 | Can we actually deliver this with available resources and capabilities? |
Composite score = (Alignment x 0.30) + (Risk x 0.25) + (Revenue x 0.25) + (Feasibility x 0.20)
Scores are relative within a prioritisation round, not absolute. The framework forces explicit trade-offs.
Tie-breaking rule: When two initiatives score within 0.5 points, prefer the one that reduces a critical risk (security or compliance) over the one that enables growth.
Example Scoring¶
| Initiative | Alignment | Risk | Revenue | Feasibility | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pay-In request signing | 5 (SG1) | 5 (Critical) | 4 (protects $1B) | 4 | 4.55 |
| New market: Egypt | 4 (SG4) | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3.50 |
| Merchant analytics dashboard | 3 (SG5) | 1 | 3 | 4 | 2.70 |
The scoring makes the trade-off visible: security remediation outscores new market entry because the risk dimension is decisive.
Cadence¶
| Forum | Frequency | Attendees | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leadership Forum | Fortnightly (alternate Tues) | CEO, CDO, COO, CFO, department heads | Review initiative status, approve/reject proposals, unblock, reprioritise |
| Department Standup | Weekly | Department head + team leads | Execution status within department. Surface blockers for escalation. |
| Quarterly Review | Quarterly | Full leadership team | Assess outcomes vs strategy. Reprioritise for next quarter. Close/cancel stale initiatives. |
Leadership Forum Agenda (90 minutes)¶
TIME ITEM OWNER
─────── ─────────────────────────────────────── ──────────
00-10 Blockers & escalations All
10-30 Active initiative status (by exception) Initiative owners
30-45 New proposals: review & decide Proposers
45-60 Strategic alignment check CEO/CDO
60-75 Resource conflicts & trade-offs Department heads
75-85 Decisions summary PMO
85-90 Action items & next steps PMO
Rule: No presentations. Status is submitted in writing 24 hours before the forum. The forum is for decisions, not updates. If an initiative is on track, it gets 30 seconds. Time is spent on blockers, trade-offs, and new proposals.
Central Register¶
All initiatives tracked in a central register. Minimum fields:
| Field | Description |
|---|---|
| ID | Unique identifier (e.g. INIT-2026-001) |
| Title | Descriptive name |
| Owner | Named individual (not a team) |
| Strategic goal | SG1-SG5 or Foundational Support #N |
| Status | Proposed / Approved / Active / Blocked / Closing / Closed / Rejected / Deferred / Cancelled |
| Priority score | Composite score from prioritisation framework |
| Start date | Actual start date |
| Target end date | Committed completion date |
| Last status update | Date of most recent update |
| Outcome | Assessed on closure (Achieved / Partially achieved / Not achieved) |
Tooling decision deferred to the offsite. Options: - Beads (already used for Architecture repo, local-first) - Confluence/Jira (already in use across the company) - Spreadsheet (simple, no tooling overhead, but no automation)
The framework is tool-agnostic. The discipline matters more than the tool.
Accountability¶
Initiative Owner Responsibilities¶
- Submit written status update 24 hours before each Leadership Forum.
- Flag blockers within 48 hours of identification. Do not wait for the next forum.
- Maintain accurate status in the central register.
- Produce outcome assessment on completion.
- Capture lessons learned and produce documentation (standard/ADR) if applicable.
Leadership Forum Responsibilities¶
- Review every new proposal within one forum cycle (2 weeks).
- Make a decision: approve, reject, or defer. No "let's discuss next time."
- Unblock escalated items with a concrete action and owner.
- Enforce the quarterly staleness rule. Stale initiatives are addressed, not ignored.
Non-Negotiable Behaviours¶
- No phantom initiatives. If it is not in the central register, it is not an initiative. Resources should not be committed to unregistered work.
- No passive status. "In progress" without a milestone achieved in the last 2 weeks requires explanation.
- Silence is not agreement. If a department head does not speak at the forum, they are assumed to agree with the decisions made. Disagreement must be voiced in the room.
- Decisions are documented. Every forum produces a written decisions log within 24 hours. Verbal agreements are not enforceable across six markets and six time zones.
- Closure is mandatory. Every initiative ends with a formal status: Closed (with outcome) or Cancelled (with rationale). Nothing stays "in progress" forever.
Metrics¶
Track these to measure whether the execution framework itself is working:
| Metric | Target | Frequency |
|---|---|---|
| Proposal-to-decision time | < 2 weeks (one forum cycle) | Monthly |
| Active initiatives per department | 3-5 (avoid overcommitment) | Fortnightly |
| Initiatives closed per quarter | > 60% of active at quarter start | Quarterly |
| Stale initiatives (no update > 4 weeks) | 0 | Fortnightly |
| Outcome achievement rate | > 70% "Achieved" or "Partially achieved" | Quarterly |
| Average initiative duration | Trending downward | Quarterly |
Integration with Existing Standards¶
| Standard | Integration |
|---|---|
| STD-GOV-124 (ARB Charter) | Initiatives with architectural implications are reviewed by the ARB before approval. ARB may require an ADR as a condition of approval. |
| STD-GOV-133 (ADR Lifecycle) | Completed initiatives that establish new architectural patterns produce an ADR in Accepted state. |
| STD-GOV-125 (Technical Debt) | Technical debt reduction initiatives follow this execution framework. The 20% quarterly capacity allocation is tracked as a standing initiative. |
| Maerifa | Completed initiatives that produce standards or ADRs are automatically indexed by Maerifa, making outcomes discoverable. |
Rollout Plan¶
| Phase | Timeline | Scope |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Offsite agreement | April 14-15, 2026 | Leadership aligns on framework. Adjustments made. |
| 2. Initial register | April 2026 | All known active initiatives registered. Owners assigned. |
| 3. First Leadership Forum | May 2026 (1st fortnight) | First formal forum under this framework. |
| 4. Quarterly review | End of Q2 2026 | First quarterly assessment. Framework itself reviewed and adjusted. |
Appendix: Anti-Patterns¶
These are the failure modes this framework is designed to prevent:
| Anti-Pattern | Symptom | Framework Response |
|---|---|---|
| Zombie initiative | "In progress" for 6+ months, no clear milestone | Quarterly staleness rule forces escalation |
| Stealth project | Resources committed without leadership awareness | Central register + "no phantom initiatives" rule |
| Decision avoidance | "Let's discuss next time" repeated across forums | Forum rule: every proposal gets a decision within one cycle |
| Priority inflation | Everything is P1 | Prioritisation framework forces scoring and relative ranking |
| Outcome avoidance | Initiative "closed" without assessing whether it worked | Mandatory outcome assessment on closure |
| Heroic execution | Success depends on one person working weekends | Resource estimate in initiative brief. Overcommitment visible in register. |
| Strategy-delivery gap | Strategy document exists, delivery is unrelated | Every initiative maps to SG1-5 or a foundational support |