HEARTH Options Appraisal Readiness Check
HEARTH tests whether the initiative is ready to begin a credible options appraisal. It focuses on problem clarity, value, the current environment, option breadth, evidence and decision ownership.
Are we ready to begin a credible options appraisal?
Problem definition
Is the business problem understood well enough to evaluate potential solutions?
The problem should describe the current condition, affected groups, consequences and reasons intervention may be needed.
Strategic alignment
Is the proposed change connected to clear organisational priorities or obligations?
Explain why the issue matters now and which strategic, regulatory, operational or customer objective it supports.
Desired outcomes
Are the intended outcomes clear enough to judge whether one option is better than another?
Outcomes should describe the change sought rather than prematurely specifying a system, supplier or delivery method.
Benefits rationale
Is there a credible explanation of why the initiative should create value?
Distinguish financial, operational, customer, risk-reduction, compliance and capability benefits.
Benefits baselines
Is current performance understood well enough to assess potential improvement?
Benefits should connect to a measurable current-state baseline where practical. Missing evidence should be explicit.
Benefits measures
Are there credible measures for comparing how well different options could realise the intended benefits?
Evaluate options against outcomes and measurable value, not only cost, timescale or technical preference.
Benefits ownership
Is it clear which part of the business would ultimately own the expected outcomes and benefits?
Early ownership helps test whether the benefits are operationally credible and whether the receiving organisation is prepared to realise them.
Current process and operating model
Has the existing process, operating model and organisational capability been assessed before considering change?
Understand how work happens now, where constraints sit and whether process or accountability changes could resolve the problem.
Existing tooling and capability
Have existing systems, licences, platforms, services and internal capabilities been evaluated for reuse, extension or reconfiguration?
New procurement or development should not be the automatic answer when existing capability may meet some or all of the need.
Existing investments
Have current commercial commitments and sunk or planned investments been considered?
Existing contracts, licences, roadmaps and transformation commitments may materially shape realistic options.
Constraints and non-negotiables
Are the material constraints understood?
Consider budget, timing, regulation, security, policy, technology, data, commercial commitments, skills and organisational capacity.
Stakeholder and user needs
Are stakeholder and user needs understood well enough to compare options fairly?
Distinguish genuine needs from preferences and avoid allowing the loudest stakeholder to define the criteria.
Architecture, data and integration
Are architectural, data, security and integration conditions understood sufficiently to identify unrealistic options?
Detailed design is not required, but material feasibility constraints should be visible before options are developed.
Option breadth
Is the appraisal prepared to consider build, buy, configure, extend, integrate, outsource, simplify or retire options?
The option set should not be artificially restricted around an assumed preferred answer.
Do-nothing option
Will maintaining the current state be assessed as a genuine option?
Expose the costs, risks and consequences of doing nothing rather than treating change as inevitable.
Affordability boundary
Is the financial envelope understood well enough to shape the option set?
Distinguish available funding, indicative affordability, whole-life cost expectations and areas still requiring validation.
Evaluation criteria
Are the criteria for evaluating options defined before the preferred answer is developed?
Criteria should reflect benefits, cost, risk, feasibility, strategic fit, implementation impact and operational sustainability.
Evidence quality
Is sufficient evidence available, or obtainable, to compare options objectively?
Know what information is available, what remains uncertain and what discovery work is required.
Decision ownership
Is it clear who will make the option decision and who must advise or assure it?
Decision rights, recommendation ownership and required assurance should be established before appraisal begins.
Assurance requirements
Is it clear what assurance or evidence will be required before an option can be recommended?
This may include commercial, financial, architecture, security, legal, operational or regulatory assurance.
Key assumptions
Are the assumptions carrying the appraisal visible and testable?
Focus on assumptions that could change option viability, benefits, affordability or implementation confidence.
Success measures
Is it clear how the quality of the appraisal and eventual decision will be judged?
Success should cover decision usefulness, evidence quality, option comparability and stakeholder confidence.