PrerequisiteCompleted Module 8 (Adoption Redesign), with a handoff-package outline and residual-risk register
0 / 3 completed
Learning objectives
Assemble the outputs of nine modules into a briefing an executive can understand in limited time.
Explain the Adoption Gate's five possible outcomes and make an evidence-based recommendation rather than a predetermined stance.
Report academic assessment and project decisions separately, and check the briefing's completeness against the nine rubric weights.
Briefing structure and the Adoption Gate
60 min
Briefing structure
Executives usually do not have time to read the full pilot report; the briefing must convey the key evidence and a clear recommendation in the shortest time, without omitting the confounders disclosed in Module 6 or the residual risk from Module 8.
Recommended executive-briefing structure
Section
Corresponding module output
Focus
Background and approved version
Module 1
Which pilot version this is, and the period and scope it covers
Process and user findings
Module 2
Current-state difficulty variance and reasons for reluctance, and whether a matching design already exists
Technical and governance status
Modules 3, 7
Result of the data-scope re-verification, and whether governance drills passed
Pilot results and evaluation
Modules 5, 6
KPI performance, comparison against baseline, and honestly disclosed confounders
Adoption readiness and residual risk
Module 8
Whether the handoff package is complete, and explicit residual risk
Recommendation
(this module)
The Adoption Gate recommendation option and the reasoning
Warning
Common mistake: presenting only positive numbers, pushing Module 6's confounders and Module 8's residual risk into an appendix or dropping them entirely. This lets the sponsor make an adoption decision on incomplete information, and if something later goes wrong, it also damages the team's credibility.
Key takeaway: A good executive briefing "condenses," it does not "polish": the length can be short, but key confounders and residual risk must never be omitted.
60 min
The Adoption Gate decision
The Adoption Gate's five outcomes
Outcome
When it applies
SCALE
Pilot evidence is sufficient, governance mechanisms are validated, and residual risk is acceptable: recommend expanding adoption scope
LIMITED ADOPTION
The pilot performs well within a specific scope but is not yet sufficient to support full expansion: recommend maintaining current scope
ITERATE
Some evidence shows the issue can be improved by revising the solution: recommend revising and re-evaluating
HOLD
Current evidence is insufficient to judge, or governance/resource conditions are not yet in place: recommend pausing until conditions mature
STOP
Evidence shows risk outweighs value, or the core hypothesis was never validated: recommend stopping investment
Cost and ongoing responsibility must be stated concretely in the recommendation: who continues to own the operating budget after adoption, who periodically reviews residual risk, and when the next governance review is scheduled. Without a concrete owner for ongoing responsibility, a SCALE or LIMITED ADOPTION decision can easily turn into an orphaned system nobody manages within a few months.
Info
A learner can pass the academic assessment on the strength of a high-quality STOP or ITERATE analysis: AcademicOutcome (whether the learner demonstrates analytical and judgment skill) and ProjectDecision (this project's Adoption Gate outcome) are two independent judgments: a project being recommended STOP does not automatically fail the learner.
Key takeaway: A recommendation is not a matter of subjective confidence: it maps the evidence to one of five options and attaches concrete cost and ownership.
Rubric-weight review and course wrap-up
60 min
Rubric-weight review and course wrap-up
IL 301 assessment rubric weights
Item
Weight
Business relevance
10%
Technical implementation
15%
Data/evidence quality
15%
Evaluation rigor
15%
Reliability
10%
Governance/privacy/security
10%
Human/workflow adoption
10%
Measured value
10%
Sponsor assessment
5%
Mapping the nine modules' outputs against these nine weights gives a quick self-check: Module 2's immersion maps to human/workflow adoption, Module 3 maps to data/evidence quality, Module 6's evaluation maps to evaluation rigor and measured value, Module 7 maps to governance/privacy/security, and Module 9 itself maps to sponsor assessment.
1Exercise: assemble a complete pilot-report briefing outline (using SYN-CS-001) Consolidate the outputs of the first eight modules into a briefing outline.
2Step 1 Following this module's recommended six-section structure, write 2-3 bullet points per section.
3Step 2 Against the nine rubric weights, mark which items in the briefing outline currently have strong evidence and which remain weak.
4Step 3 Write a concrete improvement plan for the weak items, to guide the final revision before submission.
A project team's pilot evidence shows that risk outweighs value, and the learner writes a rigorous, well-supported STOP recommendation. Per the IL SDD's three independent judgments, which statement is correct?
Key takeaway: Checking evidence strength item by item against the nine rubric weights is the most effective final self-check before submission: far more efficient than re-reading all nine modules again.
