Governance Diagnostic | Where Is Your Council Losing Decision Clarity

Governance Diagnostic · UrbanTech Plus

Where Decision Risk Is Entering Your Projects

A short diagnostic to show where decisions are creating cost, delay and audit exposure - before they are locked in.

15 questions5 governance dimensions5 minutesImmediate results on screen

Results are directional and shown only to you. Not stored or shared.

Answer all 15 questionsThis assessment identifies where decision risk is entering your projects - before it becomes audit, cost or delivery problems.Your results are shown only to you and are not stored or shared.

Progress

0 of 15

Section 1 of 5Decision Authority

1. When a decision requires input from more than one department, who has the authority to make the final call?

Nobody formally owns it. It escalates until someone acts.There is a general understanding but it is not documented.A lead department is nominated but the arrangement is informal.Cross-functional decision authority is explicitly documented and consistently applied.

2. When a decision-maker is unavailable or changes mid-process, what happens to the decision?

It waits or gets made by whoever is available.Someone steps in informally but accountability is unclear.There is a general understanding of succession but it is not formally documented.Succession of authority is formally documented and activates without delay.

3. How consistently is your delegation framework applied in practice compared to how it is documented?

Delegation shifts informally depending on who is available or who raises the issue.The framework exists but informal arrangements regularly override it.The framework is generally followed but exceptions occur under operational pressure.The delegation framework is consistently applied and exceptions are formally recorded.

Section 2 of 5Evidence Standards & Decision Sequencing

4. How does your organisation define when evidence is sufficient to proceed with a major capital commitment?

It is a judgement call made at the time by whoever is leading.There are informal expectations but they vary by project and person.Guidance exists but it is not formally binding on the commitment decision.Evidence thresholds are formally defined and must be met before commitment proceeds.

5. When risk advice is provided before a significant decision, does it have the authority to delay or prevent commitment?

No. It is noted but the decision proceeds regardless.It influences the conversation but nobody is required to act on it.It sometimes delays a decision but only when the right person pushes it.Yes. Risk advice formally holds the decision until the identified concern is resolved.

6. When multiple decisions are required before a project proceeds, how is the sequence determined?

It emerges informally as the project progresses.There is a general expectation of sequence but it is not formally defined.A sequence exists but is not consistently enforced before commitment proceeds.Decision sequencing is formally defined and enforced before commitment is made.

Section 3 of 5Escalation Timing

7. At what point does escalation typically occur relative to when risk first becomes visible?

After the problem has become visible in reporting, audit or media.When someone decides informally that it needs to go higher.There are triggers but they are not always activated at the right time.Escalation triggers are formally defined and activate before exposure is fixed.

8. How are escalation pathways defined across your programs or approval functions?

They are not formally defined. Escalation depends on relationships and availability.There is a general understanding but pathways are not documented.Pathways exist but are not consistently followed under operational pressure.Escalation pathways are explicitly documented and followed consistently.

9. When your systems flag a risk or performance issue, how reliably and within what timeframe does it reach the right decision-maker?

It depends on who sees it and whether they choose to act on it.It usually reaches the right person but timing is unpredictable.There is a general expectation of timing but it is not formally enforced.System-flagged issues reach the right decision-maker within a defined and enforced timeframe.

Section 4 of 5Cross-Functional Accountability

10. When a program crosses departmental boundaries, how is accountability managed at handover points?

Each department manages its own piece with no formal whole-of-program owner.One department tends to lead but accountability transfer is informal.There is a nominated lead but handover points are not formally documented.Cross-functional accountability is explicitly defined with documented handover points.

11. When your systems surface conflicting data across departments, how is it resolved?

It escalates to the executive informally or sits unresolved.One department's view tends to prevail without a formal resolution process.There is a process but it relies on relationships rather than structure.A defined resolution process with clear authority exists and is consistently followed.

12. When planning, finance and operations must all agree before a decision can proceed, what happens in practice?

The decision stalls until someone senior enough forces it through informally.One function tends to lead but there is no documented basis for that arrangement.There is a general understanding of who leads but it is not formally binding.The authority structure across all three functions is explicitly documented and applied.

Section 5 of 5Commitment Timing

13. When does your organisation formally commit to a capital program or major project?

When political or operational pressure requires it regardless of evidence readiness.When the business case is approved even if material uncertainties remain.When most uncertainties are resolved but some remain informal.When formally defined evidence thresholds are met and uncertainty is sufficiently resolved.

14. How is optionality managed before major commitments are made?

Options narrow informally as momentum builds without a formal review point.There is awareness of options but no formal gate to preserve them.Options are reviewed but the process is not binding on the commitment decision.Optionality is formally preserved until defined evidence thresholds are met.

15. When cost or scope changes emerge after commitment, how are they governed?

They are managed as delivery issues without reopening the original commitment decision.They are escalated informally depending on magnitude and who notices.There is a process but it does not formally retest the original authority or evidence threshold.Changes above defined thresholds formally reopen authority and evidence review before proceeding.

Please answer all 15 questions before submitting.

15 of 15 completeYour results are readyEnter your details to view your results. We will also send a copy to Shayne so he can follow up with context specific to your environment.

First name

Last name

Organisation

Role

Work email

Results display immediately. Your details are sent to UrbanTech Plus only - not stored or shared beyond that.

Your Decision Risk Assessment ResultsThis is a directional assessment of where decision risk may be entering your projects.

0 / 60

Each section is scored out of 12.

Critical risk (0-5)Elevated risk (6-8)Developing (9-10)Managed (11-12)

S1-

Decision AuthorityQ1 Q2 Q3

0 / 12

S2-

Evidence & SequencingQ4 Q5 Q6

0 / 12

S3-

Escalation TimingQ7 Q8 Q9

0 / 12

S4-

Cross-Functional AccountabilityQ10 Q11 Q12

0 / 12

S5-

Commitment TimingQ13 Q14 Q15

0 / 12

Most visible problem area

Complete the assessment to see your result.

Strongest underlying decision risk

Complete the assessment to see your result.

What this pattern typically produces

The issue showing up most clearly may not be the only area affected. The same governance weakness can often influence more than one problem area. Understanding what this means in your operating context requires interpretation.Interpret These Results With Us

What Happens Next Where Do You Want to Start? Your diagnostic results indicate where governance pressure may be forming. The next step depends on where you are - discussing what the pattern means, or testing it directly against something real in your organisation.

Your most visible problem area Complete the diagnostic above first. Your result will appear here automatically.

What you receive

A short discussion to explore what your results mean in your environment
A written report identifying the primary governance pressure point
Guidance on whether the issue appears isolated or structural
A walkthrough of findings and practical next steps
No obligation to proceed beyond the initial discussion

The discussion is focused and brief. The written report follows from that conversation, not before it.

Choose How to Proceed Both sessions are focused and brief. No obligation to proceed beyond the initial conversation.

Option 1 Discuss Your Results You want to understand what your results mean and whether the pattern reflects something real in your organisation. Discuss Your Situation

Option 2 Bring a Live Decision or Project You have a specific decision, program or audit issue. Pressure-test it directly against what your diagnostic revealed. Book a Decision Pressure-Test

Prefer to call? Reach Shayne directly on 0411 261 161 or at shayne@urbantechplus.com