Readiness Reflection Tool (Informational) – Governance Five™ ©

This dimension looks at how clearly your organisation can describe and evidence the mandate, purpose, and authority behind key decisions, programs, and claims.

• Can we point to written documents that set out the authorising environment for our major programs (e.g. legislation, board resolutions, ministerial directions, policies)?
• Are delegations of authority for key decisions clear, current, and documented – including financial, procurement, ESG, and community-impact decisions?
• When we make a public claim (for example about impact, value, or capability), can we identify who authorised the claim and under which mandate?
• Do we regularly review whether our mandates and delegations still reflect our actual practice, or have informal workarounds developed over time?

Reflection: If many answers rely on “that is just how we do it” or “everyone knows who decides that”, this may indicate a Govern stage readiness gap in formal mandate traceability.

This dimension considers whether the people and communities affected by decisions have clear, structured and documented ways to be informed, engaged, or consulted.

• Do we have a shared understanding of who our key stakeholders are for each major program or procurement?
• Are there defined, transparent pathways for stakeholders to be informed, give input, raise concerns, or co-design elements of our initiatives?
• Do we keep records of engagement activities (for example meeting notes, surveys, submissions, community forums) in a way that can be linked back to specific decisions?
• Are participation processes perceived as fair, respectful, and non-coercive by those involved, particularly vulnerable or affected groups?

Reflection: If engagement is primarily described as “ad hoc” or “we talk to people when we need to”, this may indicate a readiness gap in the Engage stage of Governance Five™ ©.

This dimension looks at how well your organisation can collect, organise, and retain evidence that explains how key decisions were made.

• For a major decision taken in the last 1–2 years, could we assemble an evidence file that includes context, options considered, analysis, engagement records, and reasons for the final choice?
• Are our records of risk, ESG, procurement, financial, and community considerations stored in a way that can be linked together, or are they scattered across different systems?
• Do we have a consistent practice for documenting and approving valuation, scoring, or trade-off decisions in tenders and programs?
• If an external auditor, regulator, or journalist asked “How did you decide this?”, would we be confident in the completeness and clarity of our documentation?

Reflection: If much of the evidence would need to be reconstructed from email archives or personal recollection, this may signal a readiness gap in the Aggregate stage.

This dimension considers whether what is delivered in practice matches what was authorised, promised, or communicated to stakeholders.

• Do we have a clear link between the authorised decision and the contracts, project plans, or implementation documents that follow?
• Are roles and responsibilities for delivery clearly defined, including accountability for ethics, fairness, and harm prevention?
• When we make public or internal commitments (for example on impact, timelines, pricing, access, or inclusion), do we check that our delivery plans and resourcing can realistically meet them?
• Can we readily identify and respond to “say–do gaps” – areas where delivery is drifting away from what was promised or authorised?

Reflection: If there is frequent confusion about who owns implementation, or if promises and delivery are often misaligned, this may indicate a readiness gap in the Deliver stage.

This dimension explores how your organisation learns from experience and adapts its governance and delivery practices over time.

• Do we have regular, structured points where we review outcomes of key programs against their original purpose and mandate?
• Are lessons learned captured in a way that can be found and used when new decisions are being made, or are they mostly informal?
• When issues or complaints arise, do we treat them only as operational problems, or also as signals that governance or participation structures may need adjustment?
• Do audit, risk, and assurance findings lead to visible, traceable changes in how we govern similar programs in future?

Reflection: If learning is primarily verbal, episodic, or dependent on a few individuals, this may suggest a readiness gap in the Evolve stage.

This dimension pulls together the previous areas and considers how they may affect risk, accountability, trust, and public confidence.

• Where would we be most vulnerable if we were asked to demonstrate the structure behind a decision – by a regulator, auditor, funder, community, or media outlet?
• Are there particular programs or claims (for example ESG, impact, sovereign capability, fairness, or safety) that rest on complex or informal governance?
• Do we have any areas where multiple frameworks (for example risk, ESG, procurement, quality) are all used, but it is not clear how they connect or which one leads?
• Would a clearer, licensed governance flow such as Governance Five™ © likely reduce duplication, clarify accountability, and improve confidence for these high-exposure areas?

Reflection: This dimension is not about measuring “good or bad”, but about identifying where governance structure could add stability and reassurance for decision-makers and stakeholders.

This final dimension helps organisations consider, at a high level, whether and how Governance Five™ © may already be reflected in their practice or public positioning, and whether formal licensing is something they may wish to explore.

• Do we publicly describe our work in ways that closely mirror the five stages of Governance Five™ © (governance, engagement, aggregation, delivery, and evolution/learning)?
• Have we used terms, concepts, or narratives that align with the Governance Five™ © system or public record (for example social value tendering, community group-buying, structured participation, or sovereign capability pathways) in our materials?
• Do we rely on a single, structured governance flow as a selling point, justification, or differentiator for our programs, projects, or market offers?
• If yes, might it be prudent to consider whether our use is properly licensed, clearly attributed, or independently originated with robust pre-2010 evidence?

Reflection: These questions are not a licensing test or decision tool. They are provided so that organisations can identify potential areas of overlap and seek their own advice regarding licensing, attribution, and alignment if they choose.