Confirm readiness to progress into Authoring

Before assessing broader readiness, review these items to determine:

Ownership: Who is responsible for resolving or monitoring the item?

Timing: Must it be addressed before Authoring, or can it continue with clear ownership?

Effect: Could it change the agreed increment or its achievability?

Required expertise: Which business, technical, data, architectural, or system specialists should contribute?

Next action: What response or investigation does the available evidence support?

Pega Blueprint™ recommendations included with the download provide an additional readiness input. Evaluate whether each recommendation clarifies business intent, highlights a relationship or dependency, affects the agreed increment, or identifies a reuse opportunity that should be investigated.

Include dependencies on established capabilities, existing solutions, enterprise services, and data in the same review. The resulting readiness position distinguishes items that can continue into Authoring from those requiring action before implementation begins.

A validated, high-fidelity Blueprint provides the agreed direction for Authoring. Project and team readiness confirms that the people and working arrangements required to act on that direction are available or have a clear path to resolution. 

Confirm that the team has:

• Identified the required contributors
• Established clear decision ownership
• Arranged access to specialist expertise (when needed)
• Provided sufficient coverage for critical contributors
• Established governance and escalation paths
• Enabled consequential decisions to be reached when required
• Agreed how changes to the Blueprint baseline will be managed

Once established, assess these conditions with the contributors responsible for the relevant areas:

The Solution Designer contributes understanding of business intent and the significance of dependencies.

The Solution Builder contributes implementation and Authoring judgment.

Business, operational, architectural, technical, and delivery participants contribute readiness information within their respective responsibilities.

Together, these checks establish whether the people needed to act on the validated design are available and ready to begin implementation. The following figure shows how key participants collaborate to assess readiness conditions. You should review these conditions with the contributors responsible for each area to ensure complete alignment.

The Blueprint communicates why a service, integration, data source, or capability is required. Technology and dependency readiness confirms whether the conditions required to implement the agreed increment are available when the planned work needs them. 

Review the required environments, access, integrations, supporting services, system and data owners, approvals, and technical dependencies. For each significant dependency, establish which part of the increment relies on it, who owns it, what action is required, and when it must be available. 

Consider whether sequencing allows other coherent work to progress while a dependency is resolved and whether the increment can still deliver its intended outcome at the planned availability point. 

The agreed outcome and first increment already exist. Readiness for Authoring confirms that they remain an appropriate implementation target given what the team now knows. 

Verify that the increment continues to support the intended outcome, represents a coherent business result, and can progress in a meaningful sequence. Bring together the active findings, contributors, decision owners, technology conditions, and dependencies that affect delivery. Where a condition affects the intended business result, establish the required resolution before the affected work progresses. 

Determine how readiness evidence affects the increment 
A readiness condition does not always require the entire increment to stop. The Solution Designer and Solution Builder determine how the affected capability can progress while preserving the intended business result. The available evidence may support one or more responses: 

• Retain the agreed increment when the available evidence supports its boundary and planned progression. 
• Progress unaffected coherent work while an outstanding condition is resolved, provided that the work will remain useful when the condition is satisfied. 
• Make capability conditional when it can progress only after a named condition is satisfied by an identified availability point. 
• Narrow or resequence the increment when doing so preserves a recognizable business result while reducing exposure to an unresolved condition. 
• Defer affected capability when the remaining increment still supports a coherent result. Record the rationale, owner, and condition or decision that will bring the capability back into consideration. 
• Complete further preparation when the unresolved condition prevents the team from establishing a coherent increment or a credible path for the affected work. 

Together, these assessments help determine whether the agreed increment remains a realistic and appropriate target for Authoring. 

The U+ Travel team confirms the agreed Tour Booking Blueprint version and the active questions that continue into Authoring. The cancellation and reassignment refinements are represented in the Blueprint. Questions about configured access, integration exchanges, and runtime behavior have owners and planned points for continued Validation. 

The required business, operational, design, and technical contributors are available. Environments and access support the planned work. Integration and data dependencies have identified owners, actions, and availability points. Workflow, participant experience, and communication work can progress while the relevant owners resolve the remaining integration conditions. Development of the dependent integration remains conditional on those conditions being satisfied before that work begins. The resulting sequence preserves the intended business outcome and keeps the agreed increment achievable. 

Together, these assessments support progression into Authoring.

The Solution Designer and Solution Builder bring the complete readiness position together and develop a recommendation for progression into Authoring. The recommendation identifies the agreed Blueprint baseline, confirms how Validation established Blueprint Readiness, explains whether the agreed increment remains achievable, and makes active project, team, technology, and dependency conditions visible with their owners and timing. 

Determine the recommended direction 
The complete readiness position may support one of three directions: 

• Progress into Authoring when the validated Blueprint, agreed increment, contributors, and delivery conditions provide a sufficiently clear and practical basis for the planned work. 

• Progress when named conditions are met when the agreed direction remains appropriate, but specific conditions must be satisfied before the engagement or affected work progresses. 

• Complete further preparation when the remaining findings prevent the team from establishing a coherent increment or a credible path for the required conditions. 

These directions express professional judgment rather than a readiness score. Avoid general recommendations such as “progress with caution.” State the direction, the evidence supporting it, the named conditions and owners, when each condition is required, and what would cause the recommendation to change. 

In the U+ Travel example, the validated Tour Booking Blueprint represents the agreed high-fidelity baseline for Authoring, and the agreed increment continues to support the intended outcome. The required contributors and core delivery conditions are available. Questions concerning configured access, integration exchanges, and runtime behavior remain active with identified owners and will be examined when the required Authoring information becomes available. The alternate-tour integration remains subject to the named source, access, connectivity, and availability conditions being satisfied before development of the dependent work begins. 

The Solution Designer and Solution Builder recommend progressing into Authoring, with the dependent integration progressing when its named conditions are met. Workflow, participant experience, and communication work can begin because those activities remain coherent and useful while the integration conditions are resolved. 

Together, these assessments provide the basis for a recommendation on progression into Authoring, making active conditions, ownership, actions, and timing visible to decision makers. 

Check your knowledge with the following interaction.