The decision comes first
A project can be strategically attractive and still be unready for the next commitment. The first question in a readiness review is therefore specific: what decision is the sponsor asking someone to make? A concept review, a feasibility commission and a financing decision require different levels of evidence.
Separate the gaps
An incomplete technical study, an unresolved land right and an untested revenue assumption are different problems. They need different owners and different routes to resolution. A useful assessment records the evidence available, the missing work, the decision affected and the next action. An overall score should make these distinctions easier to see.
Use a score carefully
MACLEAN PROJECT READINESS™ uses eleven dimensions to organise the assessment. The weighted score is accompanied by evidence coverage and checks for critical blockers. A high average cannot override a missing mandate, an unlawful procurement route or a material unresolved safety issue. The method supports professional judgement; it does not certify bankability.
Make the next step useful
The output should be a preparation plan that a sponsor can act on: which study to commission, which assumption to validate, which approval to obtain and which decision to defer. Before approaching a funder, confirm its own submission and diligence requirements. Readiness is always relative to the decision and the institution making it.
This perspective is general project and implementation commentary. Project-specific legal, engineering and investment decisions require the appropriate professional advice. Published facts are dated; procurement and regulatory requirements should be checked for the relevant appointment.
Return to insights