When should a project health check be conducted?
Written by Andrew McDonald, Founder & Principal at Carpadium· Published 24 September 2026
The best time to test project health is usually before delivery confidence has materially deteriorated.
Project Health Checks are often commissioned when a project is already experiencing difficulty. But independent review can be equally valuable at critical decision points, before major commitments are made or when early warning signs begin to emerge.
The question is therefore not simply whether a project has problems. It is whether greater confidence in the delivery position would improve the decisions being made.
Executive guide | Project Health
TIMING MATTERS
A Health Check does not require a project to be in trouble.
Independent review is sometimes associated with failing projects. That is too narrow a view.
A Project Health Check provides a point-in-time assessment of whether the evidence supports confidence in successful delivery. It can therefore be valuable while a project remains Green, particularly when executives are approaching an important decision or when the consequences of being wrong are significant.
Used early, a Health Check can identify emerging risks while management still has options available. Used later, it can establish the actual delivery position and help determine whether intervention or recovery is required.
“The right time for a Health Check is when better evidence could materially improve an important project decision.”
WHEN TO CONSIDER A REVIEW
Six situations where an independent Health Check can add value.
There is no single event that automatically requires a Project Health Check. However, several recurring situations justify considering an independent view of project health.
Before a major investment or governance decision
Significant commitments should be supported by credible delivery evidence rather than status reporting alone.
Typical triggers
- approval of the next funding tranche
- major contract or vendor commitments
- approval to enter implementation
- material scope expansion
- commitment to externally visible delivery dates
Executive question
“Do we have sufficient evidence to make this decision with confidence?”
When milestones repeatedly move
Individual schedule changes may be manageable. Repeated movement can indicate that the underlying delivery plan is becoming less credible.
Typical triggers
- milestones repeatedly moving between reporting periods
- increasing schedule contingency consumption
- critical-path changes
- recovery plans not restoring schedule confidence
- final delivery dates being protected by increasing concurrency
Executive question
“Is the current delivery date still supported by a credible plan?”
When cost or resource pressure is increasing
Rising forecast costs or continued requests for additional resources can be early indicators that delivery assumptions are no longer holding.
Typical triggers
- forecast-to-complete increasing
- contingency being consumed earlier than expected
- additional specialist resources being requested
- vendor expenditure increasing
- financial pressure being managed through scope deferral
Executive question
“What has changed in the assumptions underpinning the current forecast?”
Before a major implementation or go-live
Technical completion does not necessarily mean the organisation is ready to implement safely and successfully.
Typical triggers
- approaching production deployment
- unresolved high-severity defects
- incomplete operational readiness
- outstanding data migration or reconciliation concerns
- business adoption, training or transition activity behind plan
Executive question
“What evidence demonstrates that the organisation—not just the technology—is ready?”
When stakeholder confidence begins to decline
Formal reporting may remain positive even while confidence among sponsors, executives, delivery teams or dependent stakeholders begins to weaken.
Typical triggers
- executives requesting increasing levels of detail
- conflicting views of project health
- concerns emerging outside formal governance
- repeated escalation of unresolved issues
- declining confidence in forecasts or commitments
Executive question
“Why is stakeholder confidence different from the position presented in formal reporting?”
Following a significant change or disruption
Material change can invalidate assumptions that previously supported the project’s plan.
Typical triggers
- major scope change
- change of delivery partner or vendor
- leadership or key personnel changes
- significant regulatory or policy change
- major technical issue or dependency failure
Executive question
“Does the existing delivery plan remain credible following what has changed?”
HEALTH CHECKS ACROSS THE LIFECYCLE
Different stages require different questions.
A Health Check can be conducted at almost any point in a project’s lifecycle. The emphasis of the review should change as the project progresses.
INITIATE
Focus
- Business case
- Scope clarity
- Governance
- Delivery approach
PLAN
Focus
- Schedule credibility
- Resources
- Dependencies
- Commercial arrangements
DELIVER
Focus
- Progress
- Cost
- Risk
- Quality
- Delivery confidence
IMPLEMENT
Focus
- Readiness
- Testing
- Data
- Transition
- Go-live risk
REALISE
Focus
- Adoption
- Benefits
- Operational performance
- Outstanding risk
INITIATE
Focus
- Business case
- Scope clarity
- Governance
- Delivery approach
PLAN
Focus
- Schedule credibility
- Resources
- Dependencies
- Commercial arrangements
DELIVER
Focus
- Progress
- Cost
- Risk
- Quality
- Delivery confidence
IMPLEMENT
Focus
- Readiness
- Testing
- Data
- Transition
- Go-live risk
REALISE
Focus
- Adoption
- Benefits
- Operational performance
- Outstanding risk
Independent review should focus on the evidence most relevant to the decisions being made at that point in the lifecycle.
TWO APPROACHES
Health Checks can be planned—or triggered by emerging concerns.
PLANNED HEALTH CHECK
Used proactively at predetermined points in the project lifecycle.
Typical examples
- before major funding approval
- before implementation
- at stage gates
- periodically during major transformation programs
- before significant contractual commitments
Purpose: increase confidence before an important decision.
TRIGGERED HEALTH CHECK
Initiated because evidence or stakeholder confidence suggests closer examination is required.
Typical examples
- milestones slipping
- costs increasing
- unresolved dependencies
- repeated governance escalation
- readiness concerns
- disagreement about project status
Purpose: establish the actual delivery position before deciding what intervention is required.
Both approaches have the same objective: better evidence for better executive decisions.
EARLY INTERVENTION
Waiting for Red status can reduce the options available.
A project’s formal status is a lagging indicator when the underlying conditions have been deteriorating for some time.
By the time a project formally reports Red, schedule contingency may already be exhausted, contractual commitments may have been made, implementation dates may be externally committed and alternative delivery options may have narrowed.
This does not mean every emerging issue requires independent review. It means executives should consider the pattern of evidence rather than waiting for a particular RAG status.
The value of early assurance is not simply identifying problems earlier. It is preserving management options.
SHOULD WE COMMISSION A HEALTH CHECK?
Five questions can help determine whether independent review is warranted.
Are we approaching a decision that would be difficult or expensive to reverse?
Consider major funding, contractual, implementation or external commitments.
Has confidence in the delivery position changed?
Look beyond RAG status to schedule, cost, risk, scope, readiness and stakeholder confidence.
Are important assumptions still unproven?
Identify assumptions supporting major milestones, costs, dependencies or readiness.
Are the same material issues continuing across reporting periods?
Persistent issues can indicate that governance actions are treating symptoms rather than underlying causes.
Would independent evidence materially improve the next executive decision?
If the answer is yes, a focused Health Check may be appropriate even if the project remains Green.
A Health Check should be proportionate to the decision and the level of uncertainty. Not every situation requires a large assurance exercise.
PROPORTIONATE ASSURANCE
Use the smallest intervention that provides sufficient confidence.
The presence of uncertainty does not automatically justify a full Project Health Check. The appropriate response depends on the nature of the concern and the decisions executives need to make.
PROJECT PULSE
Focused question or emerging concern
A rapid independent perspective where executives need evidence around a specific delivery question or area of concern.
EXPLORE PROJECT PULSEPROJECT HEALTH CHECK
Broader uncertainty about overall project health
A structured, evidence-based assessment of the project’s overall health, risks and delivery confidence.
EXPLORE PROJECT HEALTH CHECKSPROJECT RECOVERY
Delivery confidence has materially deteriorated
Appropriate where the project requires stabilisation, reprioritisation, replanning or active recovery.
EXPLORE PROJECT RECOVERYFor guidance on how often project health checks should be conducted across the delivery lifecycle, see our companion article on health check frequency and cadence.
COMMON QUESTIONS
Project Health Check timing FAQs
Yes. A Green status does not prevent independent review. Health Checks can be particularly valuable before major decisions where executives want additional confidence that reported status is supported by the underlying evidence.
There is no universal frequency. The appropriate timing depends on project scale, complexity, risk and governance requirements. Major programs may use reviews at predetermined stage gates, while other projects commission them only when particular decisions or concerns arise.
It can be valuable where implementation risk is significant. A pre-implementation review should examine not only technical readiness but also operational readiness, data, business adoption, transition, support arrangements and unresolved risks.
No. Schedule movement occurs in complex projects. Independent review becomes more relevant when movement is repeated, poorly explained, affecting critical dependencies or accompanied by other indicators of declining delivery confidence.
Health Checks are commonly commissioned by project sponsors, Steering Committees, executives, transformation leaders, CIOs, PMOs or Boards seeking an independent view of project health and delivery confidence.
The duration should be proportionate to project complexity and the questions being examined. A focused review may be completed relatively quickly, while a complex program requiring extensive evidence review and stakeholder interviews will require a broader assessment.
NEED AN INDEPENDENT VIEW?
Not sure whether your project needs independent review?
A short conversation can help determine whether a Project Pulse, Project Health Check or more substantial intervention is appropriate.
RELATED INSIGHTS
Continue exploring project assurance
WRITTEN BY
Andrew McDonald
Founder & Principal, Carpadium
Andrew leads and delivers Carpadium’s independent project and program assurance, health check and recovery engagements, working directly with executives, sponsors and governance forums across the Australian market.
INDEPENDENT PROJECT & PROGRAM HEALTH CHECKS
Need greater confidence in a critical project decision?
Independent perspective. Senior-level judgement. Evidence before opinion.
Carpadium provides independent Project and Program Health Checks for complex Australian organisations, helping executives understand the evidence behind reported status and make informed decisions about delivery.