Workflow template for project and delivery
Project portfolio status roll-up
The head of delivery takes one page to leadership each fortnight or month, built from the reports project leads already write: every project red, amber or green as its own lead stated it, what moved, the decisions leadership is asked for, and where two reports contradict each other or a status has no reason.
Listed under
Add it to a workflow in the Fully Powered Planner, beside the teams and roles that will run it. Book a fit call
The outcome
Leadership sees every project on one page, in the same shape every period, without anyone rewriting the leads' reports. Each project carries the colour its own lead gave it, the reason the lead gave, what finished since last time and the lead's forecast beside the planned end. A count at the top shows how many projects are red, amber and green, and which changed since the last roll-up.
The decisions come next, gathered from every report into one list ordered by the date each is needed. A question asked last period and still unanswered is carried forward with its number and marked when its date has passed, so nothing asked of leadership quietly disappears.
Then the part that is hardest to do by hand: where the reports do not fit together. When one project expects a handover from another on a date the other project's own report does not give, both statements are quoted side by side. A project that reports no colour, turns green without saying why, or sends nothing at all is listed by name, with the lead to ask.
The roll-up changes no status and adds no judgment of its own. It gives the portfolio no overall colour, ranks nothing and never says which of two reports is right. The head of delivery chases the gaps, confirms the page and decides what goes to leadership. The AI assistant sends nothing.
Who starts the work, and when
The head of delivery or the head of operations, or a coordinator on their behalf, runs it once per reporting period, fortnightly or monthly, after the project leads' reports are in and before the leadership meeting. It suits a company of up to a few hundred people running several projects at once, each with its own lead: a new system, a new line, a move, a new service. It runs again if a late report arrives or a lead corrects a report after being asked about a gap.
What they supply
- The project register, exported as a spreadsheet: each project with its ID, name, lead and planned end, and optionally its sponsor and the projects it depends on. If the column headings do not match the ones the workflow template expects, it stops and asks which column is which.
- The project leads' status reports for the period, as they wrote them. No fixed layout is needed.
- The last roll-up, so last period's colours and unanswered decisions carry over.
- Leadership's decision notes since the last roll-up.
- The settings: the period, the report date, the meeting date, who reads the page, the word limit, and, if your company uses words such as "on track" instead of colours, the agreed meaning of each.
What comes out
One page for leadership in a fixed order: at a glance, the decisions asked of leadership, every project red first, then where the reports disagree or leave a gap. Empty sections say so in a word, such as "None found", so the reader knows nothing was left out.
Beneath it, a short part for the head of delivery only, removed before sending: who to chase before the meeting and about what, anything left out of the page and why, and a line to confirm every status was checked against its report.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. The company, its people, its projects, its suppliers and every date and figure below are invented. The company is an invented 130-person maker of commercial kitchen equipment running five internal projects at once. The head of operations runs the roll-up each fortnight for the leadership team. People are named by role only. First come the five inputs the head of operations supplied, in full, then the draft the workflow template returned.
The inputs
1. Settings
Name: Internal projects
Head of delivery role: Head of operations
Reader: Leadership team
Meeting: Tuesday 10 November 2026
Period: Monday 26 October to Friday 6 November 2026 (fortnightly)
Report date: Monday 9 November 2026
Page limit: default (800 words)
Status word list: none
2. The project register (exported from the company's project list)
Project ID,Project,Lead,Sponsor,Planned end,Depends on
P1,New ERP system,IT manager,Finance director,2027-02-01,
P2,Second assembly line,Plant engineer,Plant manager,2027-01-15,P4
P3,Dealer portal,Marketing manager,Sales director,2026-12-04,P1
P4,Warehouse racking and move,Logistics manager,Plant manager,2026-11-27,
P5,Quality system recertification,Quality manager,Managing director,2027-03-31,
3. The status reports, as each lead sent them
Four reports arrived. The quality manager sent none for P5.
P1 NEW ERP SYSTEM, fortnightly report from the IT manager
Status: AMBER.
Why: cleansing of the customer and price data is two weeks behind
plan, because the ERP supplier moved its consultant to another client
for a week. (Frankly the consultant they sent was not up to it.)
Done this fortnight: chart of accounts mapped and signed off by the
finance director on 28 October; test system live on 3 November.
Customer and price data will be ready for the dealer portal team from
7 December (was 23 November).
Go-live: 1 February 2027 holds if the cleansing finishes by
4 December.
Decision for leadership: approve six extra days of the supplier's
consultant at $1,200 a day ($7,200), so the cleansing finishes by
4 December. Without them it finishes on 18 December and go-live moves
to 1 March 2027. Needed by Friday 13 November. I recommend approving
the days.
P2 SECOND ASSEMBLY LINE, from the Plant engineer
Status: GREEN.
Done: the four assembly machines arrived on 30 October and passed the
delivery inspection on 2 November.
Next: installation starts on 1 December in the old warehouse bay, once
the warehouse move has cleared it. Commissioning on track for
15 January.
Dealer portal update (P3), from the Marketing manager
On track. Design signed off by the sales director on 30 October. Build
started on 2 November. We connect to the ERP's customer and price data
from 23 November, as agreed with IT, and launch on 4 December.
P4 WAREHOUSE RACKING AND MOVE, from the Logistics manager
RED.
Why: the racking supplier has moved installation from 16 to
30 November because its steel delivery is late.
Done: floor marking finished; the fire inspection of the new bay
passed on 2 November.
The move out of the old bay therefore finishes on 11 December, not
27 November.
Decision for leadership: rent temporary storage for December at
$4,500, or hold the second line's incoming parts at their supplier
until January. Without one or the other, parts arriving from
30 November have nowhere to go. Needed by Monday 16 November. I
recommend renting the storage.
4. The last roll-up (sent on Monday 26 October, for 12 to 23 October, shortened here to what carries over)
P1 New ERP system: AMBER. Reason: data cleansing behind plan.
P2 Second assembly line: AMBER. Reason: machines held at the port;
delivery expected 30 October.
P3 Dealer portal: GREEN. Reason: design on schedule.
P4 Warehouse racking and move: GREEN. Reason: supplier confirmed
installation for 16 November.
P5 Quality system recertification: GREEN. Reason: internal audit plan
agreed.
Decisions asked of leadership:
D1 (P3, asked by the Marketing manager). Should the portal take card
payments only, or card and account credit? Needed by 30 October.
D2 (P1, asked by the IT manager). Should sales staff stop editing
customer records until go-live (a data freeze), and from when?
Needed by 6 November. Options given: freeze from 16 November;
freeze from 7 December. Recommendation: IT manager: freeze from
16 November.
5. The leadership decision notes since the last roll-up
- Friday 30 October: the leadership team chose card and account
credit for the dealer portal (D1).
The output
PORTFOLIO STATUS ROLL-UP: Internal projects, 26 October to 6 November 2026
DRAFT for the Head of operations' confirmation. Not for sending until confirmed.
For: Leadership team, meeting Tuesday 10 November 2026. Report date: Monday 9 November 2026. Last roll-up: Monday 26 October 2026.
Prepared from: the project register (5 projects); reports from 4 of 5 projects, none from: P5; the last roll-up of 26 October 2026; the decision notes.
Each status is as its lead stated it. This roll-up sets none of its own.
AT A GLANCE
5 projects: 1 red, 1 amber, 1 green, 1 not stated as a colour, 1 not reported.
Changed since the last roll-up: P2 from AMBER to GREEN; P3 from GREEN to not stated as a colour; P4 from GREEN to RED; P5 from GREEN to not reported.
Decisions asked of leadership: 3, earliest needed by 6 November, 1 past the date needed. Contradictions between reports: 2. Other gaps: 4.
DECISIONS ASKED OF LEADERSHIP: 3, earliest date needed first
D2 (P1, asked by the IT manager, carried from the roll-up of 26 October). Should sales staff stop editing customer records until go-live (a data freeze), and from when? Needed by 6 November, past the date needed. Options given: freeze from 16 November; freeze from 7 December. Recommendation: IT manager: freeze from 16 November. What moves: not stated.
D3 (P1, asked by the IT manager). Will you approve six extra days of the ERP supplier's consultant so the data cleansing finishes by 4 December? Needed by 13 November. Options given: approve the six days at $1,200 a day ($7,200), or go without them. Recommendation: IT manager: approve the days. What moves: with the days, go-live holds at 1 February 2027; without them, the cleansing finishes on 18 December and go-live moves to 1 March 2027.
D4 (P4, asked by the Logistics manager). Where should the second line's incoming parts be held in December? Needed by 16 November. Options given: rent temporary storage for December at $4,500; hold the parts at their supplier until January. Recommendation: Logistics manager: rent the storage. What moves: without one or the other, parts arriving from 30 November have nowhere to go.
Answered since the last roll-up: D1, card and account credit for the dealer portal, by the leadership team, 30 October.
PROJECTS
P4 Warehouse racking and move. Lead: Logistics manager. Status: RED (last roll-up: GREEN).
Reason, as stated: the racking supplier moved installation from 16 to 30 November; its steel delivery is late.
Moved: floor marked; new bay passed fire inspection 2 November.
End: planned 27 November; lead's forecast 11 December.
P1 New ERP system. Lead: IT manager. Status: AMBER (last roll-up: AMBER).
Reason, as stated: customer and price data cleansing is two weeks behind plan; the ERP supplier moved its consultant to another client for a week.
Moved: chart of accounts signed off 28 October; test system live 3 November.
End: planned 1 February 2027; lead's forecast 1 February 2027, if the cleansing finishes by 4 December; 1 March 2027, without the extra days in D3.
P2 Second assembly line. Lead: Plant engineer. Status: GREEN (last roll-up: AMBER).
Reason, as stated: no reason given.
Moved: four machines arrived 30 October, passed inspection 2 November.
End: planned 15 January 2027; lead's forecast 15 January 2027.
P3 Dealer portal. Lead: Marketing manager. Status: not stated as a colour: "On track" (last roll-up: GREEN).
Reason, as stated: no reason given.
Moved: design signed off 30 October; build started 2 November.
End: planned 4 December; lead's forecast 4 December.
P5 Quality system recertification. Lead: Quality manager. Status: not reported (last roll-up: GREEN). End: planned 31 March 2027.
WHERE THE REPORTS DISAGREE OR LEAVE A GAP
Contradictions: 2
C1. P1 and P3: when the ERP's customer and price data reach the dealer portal team. P1 report: "ready for the dealer portal team from 7 December (was 23 November)" P3 report: "We connect to the ERP's customer and price data from 23 November, as agreed with IT, and launch on 4 December" Not settled here. Ask: IT manager, Marketing manager.
C2. P2 and P4: when the old warehouse bay is clear for the second line. P2 report: "installation starts on 1 December in the old warehouse bay, once the warehouse move has cleared it" P4 report: "The move out of the old bay therefore finishes on 11 December" Not settled here. Ask: Plant engineer, Logistics manager.
Other gaps: 4
P2: colour changed from last period's with no reason given. AMBER last period, GREEN now. Ask: Plant engineer.
P3: status not stated as a colour. The report says "On track". Ask: Marketing manager.
P5: no report received. GREEN last period. Ask: Quality manager.
D2: carried decision mentioned nowhere this period. Past the date needed; not in the P1 report or the decision notes. Ask: IT manager.
FOR THE HEAD OF OPERATIONS ONLY. Remove before sending.
To chase before the meeting: 5 people
IT manager: C1, the date the customer and price data reach the portal team; D2, not mentioned this period.
Plant engineer: C2, the date the old bay is clear; the reason for P2's green.
Marketing manager: C1; P3's status as red, amber or green.
Logistics manager: C2.
Quality manager: P5's report for this period.
Left out of the page: 1. A remark judging a person, from the P1 report.
Every status checked against its report as written: [ ]
Confirmed by: [ ] Date: [ ]
Nothing has been sent, and no status, plan or record has been changed.
Every status on the page is the one its lead wrote. P2's green stays green even though its own report and P4's report disagree about the old bay: the disagreement is shown as C2 and the plant engineer is asked, but the roll-up does not decide whether green still holds. P2's report lists what arrived and what comes next without saying why the project is green, so the reason reads "no reason given", and because the colour changed from amber, that is a gap. "On track" is not a colour and the settings carry no status word list, so P3 is shown in the lead's own words. P5 sent nothing, so its green from 26 October is shown only as last period's status.
The counts add up: one red (P4), one amber (P1), one green (P2), one not stated as a colour (P3) and one not reported (P5) make the five projects in the register. D1 is answered in the decision notes, so it moves to "Answered". D2 is not in the notes, so it is carried with its number; it was needed by 6 November, before the report date of 9 November, so it is past the date needed. The new decisions continue from D2 as D3 and D4, and the three are ordered 6, 13 and 16 November. Six days at $1,200 is $7,200, as the IT manager's report states. Both contradictions sit on pairs the register links through "Depends on": P3 depends on P1, and P2 depends on P4. The remark about the supplier's consultant is left out of P1's reason and noted for the head of operations. The page, from the title line to the last gap, comes to 800 words, exactly at the 800-word limit, with every project, decision, contradiction and gap kept. The head of operations chases the five people, confirms the statuses, removes the last part and takes the page to the meeting.
Where it fits
- Project and delivery, which answers to leadership for every project at once, not one at a time.
- Operations and process improvement, where the head of operations often holds the project list in a company without a delivery office.
- Leadership, which reads the page and owns the decisions on it.
- Professional services, where internal projects run beside client work and leadership wants them in one view.
- Engineering firms, where a new system, a new office and a new service line can all be in flight in the same quarter.
- Manufacturing, where a new line, a warehouse move and a system change depend on each other's dates.
- Software technology, where several product and internal projects report to one leadership team.
- Established businesses, where projects run alongside a full working week and leadership has minutes for them, not hours.
- Growth & scaling, when the company starts running more projects than one person can hold in their head.
What has to change for your company
Decide who reads the page and how long before the meeting it goes out. Agree once whether your leads report in colours; if they write "on track" or "at risk", write down what each word means as a colour, or the roll-up will show the words and ask. Keep one project register as the list of who should report, with the projects each depends on, because that is where most contradictions are found. Decide whether the leads see the chase list before the meeting and how long they have to answer. Set the word limit to suit the number of projects. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini from files and notes you supply; it needs no connection to your project software.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this workflow template as an original method, with no third-party source. It was editorially reviewed on 12 November 2026. It was tried once on its invented example, in Claude on 12 November 2026; the run was not fully blind, and its record is published with it. The findings of that run were then acted on in the template's steps and instructions, and those edits have not been run again. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on two or three past periods your head of delivery remembers, with hard cases written in advance: a project that sends no report, a lead who writes "on track" instead of a colour, two reports that give different dates for the same handover, a decision from last time that nobody mentions. The head of delivery checks every status against the reports as written before anyone relies on it. Pilot acceptance-test preparation sets up those cases, Project status report prepares each project's own report, and Decision log keeps leadership's answers once they are given.
Who decides
Your people keep
- Every status, which stays as its lead stated it
- Which of two contradicting reports is right
- What goes to leadership
- The decisions asked of leadership
It does not
- Changes no status
- Gives the portfolio no overall colour and ranks nothing
- Sends nothing
- Adds no judgment of its own
Questions people ask
Who is it for?
The head of delivery or the head of operations, or a coordinator on their behalf, runs it once per reporting period, after the project leads' reports are in and before the leadership meeting.
What do I need to supply?
The project register as a spreadsheet, the project leads' status reports as they wrote them, the last roll-up, leadership's decision notes and the settings.
Does it change a project's colour?
No. Every project carries the colour its own lead gave it. The roll-up changes no status, adds no judgment of its own, gives the portfolio no overall colour and never says which of two reports is right.
What happens when two reports disagree?
Both statements are quoted side by side, with the lead to ask. The head of delivery chases the gaps, confirms the page and decides what goes to leadership.
What has been checked?
It was editorially reviewed on 12 November 2026 and tried once on its invented example in Claude on the same day; the run was not fully blind. Edits made after that run have not been run again. It has not yet been tested in a client environment.
The full workflow template
Everything above is the outline. The complete workflow template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Put this workflow template to work for your team: on your plan, or built with you in a sprint.
Build this in a sprint
In a sprint, Fully Powered adapts this workflow template to your rules, proves it on your own work and puts it in the hands of the roles that own it.
Two ways to begin: