Quick Look
4. Approve.
See what your team will experience before you share it.
Project Status Report Coach
Project Status Report: Acme Cloudworks example
Methods: Minto Pyramid Principle · RAG Status Reporting
The report as submitted
Out of 100: the average of the criteria below, each scored 1 to 5.
Clarity
2/5
The report does not state a governing conclusion near the top; the only overall assessment—“We are still aiming to finish all migrations by December 15, although it will be tight”—appears near the end, after the reader has had to assemble the project picture from multiple sections.
Structured
3/5
The report separates activity, numbers, next steps, and risks, but it does not explicitly connect the situation and complications to a central question and answer; the reader must infer how the data issues, defects, licence renewal, and schedule affect the December 15 target.
Logical
3/5
The report groups information into recognizable sections and provides useful figures such as “97 of 178 (55%)” and “58” open defects, but the groups do not consistently provide summary insights or an ordered argument showing which risks most threaten the target date.
Transparent
2/5
The report gives evidence of health concerns—“5 had problems,” “4 are rated high,” UAT is “a week later,” and the licence renewal is open—but it provides no explicit RAG status for each workstream and no consistently stated criteria for judging whether each is on track.
Actionable
3/5
The report lists concrete next steps such as closing five data issues, following up with Cartex, continuing UAT, and delivering the offline sync fix, but it does not assign owners, provide due dates for most actions, state trend direction, or identify a specific decision or intervention requested from Dana.
The report contains enough factual detail to show that the Atlas migration is under pressure, but it does not make the decision-relevant conclusion explicit: whether the program is on track for December 15 and what Dana needs to do now. The largest risk is that several material threats are named—five customer data issues, four high mobile defects, delayed UAT, the unresolved Cartex licence, address-cleansing delays, and data-team overtime—without a consolidated status, quantified schedule impact, or defined intervention.
Average score: 2.6/5 (52/100).
- The assertion that the December 15 completion date remains achievable: provide a dated integrated schedule showing remaining waves, dependencies, contingency, and forecast completion date.
- The expected impact of the five wave 3 data issues: provide a dated recovery plan for each customer, with named owners and committed resolution dates.
- The claim that mobile high-severity defects can be closed before wave 4: provide the defect list, fix dates, QA exit criteria, and the wave 4 go/no-go date.
- The financial impact of the Cartex licence renewal: provide the current proposal, the existing licence cost, the proposed price, and the budget variance under each likely outcome.
- The additional capacity required for address cleansing: provide file-volume estimates for wave 4, current processing rates, forecast effort, and the staffing or schedule change required.
- The extent of data-team burnout risk: provide overtime hours, affected roles, and a dated mitigation plan.