BIQ01 - What is the official project or programme name, who is the sponsoring organisation, and who is the accountable executive contact?
The project is Intergenerational Living Development, Project 519. It is currently being shaped as an early-stage PHC project associated with Order Efficiency Ltd. The sponsoring organisation and accountable executive contact are not yet formally established; David Winter is acting as project initiator at this concept stage.
BIQ02 - What strategic need or business problem is the project intended to address?
The project is intended to address the difficulty younger households face in securing good-quality affordable housing, while recognising that older generations may hold property, capital or support capacity that could be used more effectively across generations. It also tests whether housing can support family connection without forcing loss of privacy or independence.
BIQ03 - What are the principal project objectives, and how will success be measured?
The principal objective is to define and test a practical, attractive and financially credible model for intergenerational living. Success will be measured by a clear need statement, viable design options, affordability evidence, stakeholder support, planning and regulatory feasibility, and a decision on whether the concept should proceed to a more formal business case.
BIQ04 - What is included within the approved scope, and what is explicitly excluded?
Current scope includes framing the need, defining the intended users, testing the intergenerational living concept, identifying design and tenure options, and establishing the main feasibility, governance, financial and stakeholder questions. Detailed architectural design, land acquisition, planning submission, procurement, construction and operational launch are not yet included in approved scope.
BIQ05 - What lifecycle stage is the project currently in, and what are the next formal decision or approval gates?
The project is at early concept and framing stage. The next formal gates are expected to be confirmation of the project mandate, agreement of governance and sponsor ownership, approval to undertake feasibility work, and then a decision on whether to develop a preferred option and business case.
BIQ06 - What governance structure applies, including boards, delegated authorities, decision rights and escalation routes?
A formal governance structure is not yet established. For the current stage, decisions should be held by the project initiator or sponsor representative, with escalation to the future sponsoring organisation once confirmed. A simple decision log, action log and issue register should be used until formal boards and delegated authorities are agreed.
BIQ07 - Which legal, regulatory, contractual, safety, security or policy obligations most strongly shape the project?
The project is likely to be shaped by planning law, building regulations, housing standards, accessibility requirements, fire and life-safety duties, safeguarding considerations, landlord and tenant law, data protection, procurement rules if public funding is involved, and any affordability or grant conditions. The exact obligations are not yet established and require specialist review.
BIQ08 - What are the most important assumptions, constraints and external dependencies?
Key assumptions are that there is demand for intergenerational housing, that a design can provide both privacy and shared benefit, and that affordability can be made credible. Current constraints include immature funding, no confirmed site, no approved governance, and no settled tenure or operating model. Dependencies include planning advice, financial modelling, stakeholder engagement and legal review.
BIQ09 - What approved baselines currently exist for scope, schedule, cost, risk and benefits, and when were they last reviewed?
No approved baselines for scope, schedule, cost, risk or benefits are yet established. The current material should be treated as concept information only. The first control improvement should be to create initial baselines for the feasibility phase and review them at the first formal project gate.
BIQ10 - What are the three most important decisions or control improvements required in the next 90 days?
The next 90 days should establish the project mandate and decision owner, define the feasibility scope and evidence required, and test the main options for site, design, tenure, affordability and operating model. A basic risk register and decision log should also be created so that assumptions are visible and controlled.
PSQ01 - What delivery model is proposed, and how is the programme divided into workstreams, projects or major packages?
The proposed delivery model is not yet fixed. At this stage it should be treated as a feasibility project with workstreams for need and users, design options, planning and regulation, finance and affordability, legal and tenure model, stakeholder engagement, and delivery or operating model.
PSQ02 - What are the principal deliverables, and what acceptance criteria will demonstrate that each is complete and fit for purpose?
Principal early deliverables should include a project mandate, needs statement, stakeholder map, initial option set, affordability assumptions, outline risk register, feasibility plan and decision log. Acceptance criteria should require each deliverable to be evidence-based, reviewed by the accountable owner, and clear about unresolved assumptions.
PSQ03 - What are the key milestones, schedule drivers and current critical or near-critical paths?
No approved milestone plan or critical path exists yet. The near-term schedule drivers are confirmation of sponsorship, agreement of feasibility scope, access to relevant housing and demographic evidence, early planning advice, and completion of initial financial and legal option reviews.
PSQ04 - How are risks and opportunities identified, assessed, quantified, owned, treated and escalated?
Risks and opportunities should be captured in a simple register, with each item assigned an owner, likelihood, impact, treatment action and review date. At this stage the process is not yet mature; escalation thresholds should be agreed for issues affecting viability, affordability, planning, safety or sponsor commitment.
PSQ05 - How are scope, design, schedule, cost and organisational changes proposed, assessed, approved and incorporated into the baseline?
A formal change control process is not yet established. Until baselines are approved, material changes to scope, concept, assumptions or decision dates should be recorded in a decision log and reviewed by the project sponsor or initiator before being treated as current.
PSQ06 - What assurance reviews, stage gates, peer reviews or independent challenges are required, and who has authority to accept the findings?
Required assurance reviews are not yet established. For the current phase, independent challenge should be sought on planning feasibility, housing need, affordability, legal structure, safeguarding and operating model. Authority to accept findings should sit with the accountable sponsor once appointed.
PSQ07 - How will quality requirements, verification, validation, inspection, testing and non-conformance be controlled?
Quality control should focus on whether feasibility evidence is complete, traceable and suitable for decisions. Later stages will need formal design review, regulatory compliance checks, inspection and testing plans. These detailed verification and non-conformance controls are not yet established.
PSQ08 - What are the most important technical, organisational and contractual interfaces, and how are they managed?
Important interfaces include the design concept, planning authority requirements, legal and tenure model, affordability assumptions, finance and funding, future operator responsibilities, and stakeholder expectations. These interfaces are not yet formally managed and should be tracked through an interface and assumptions log.
PSQ09 - What procurement and supply-chain strategy applies, particularly for specialist, long-lead or safety-significant items?
No procurement or supply-chain strategy has been approved. Early procurement is likely to be limited to professional advice such as planning, architecture, quantity surveying, housing finance, legal structure and community engagement. Long-lead construction or supplier decisions should not be made until feasibility and funding are clearer.
PSQ10 - How will commissioning, handover, operational readiness and benefits realisation be planned and evidenced?
Commissioning, handover and operational readiness are not yet defined. Early work should identify the intended operating model, ownership and maintenance responsibilities, resident selection or eligibility criteria, service standards, and benefits measures so that later handover requirements can be designed from the start.
PEQ01 - Which systems are the authoritative sources for scope, schedule, cost, risk, actions, changes, documents and evidence?
Authoritative systems are not yet formally established. For the current phase, the PHC project record should hold questions and answers, while controlled files should hold supporting evidence, decisions, risks, actions and assumptions. A single agreed document location should be confirmed before feasibility work expands.
PEQ02 - How are documents numbered, reviewed, approved, revised, distributed, retained and withdrawn from use?
A document-control procedure is not yet established. Early documents should use a simple naming convention with project number, title, version, date and status. Reviews, approvals and withdrawals should be recorded so that superseded assumptions are not accidentally used for later decisions.
PEQ03 - What evidence is required to substantiate reported progress, completed actions, accepted deliverables and closed risks or concerns?
Evidence should include source documents, meeting notes, decision records, option appraisals, professional advice, cost assumptions, stakeholder feedback and records of closed actions. Each completed answer or decision should identify the evidence used and whether that evidence is firm, indicative or not yet established.
PEQ04 - How are configuration, version and baseline changes controlled so that teams know which information is current?
Configuration and baseline control are not yet mature. Once a feasibility baseline is agreed, changes to scope, assumptions, option definitions and decision dates should be logged with the reason, approver and impact. Current versions should be clearly marked and superseded versions retained for audit.
PEQ05 - What data-quality rules apply, and who is responsible for checking completeness, consistency, timeliness and accuracy?
Formal data-quality rules are not yet established. For the current stage, information should be checked for completeness, source, date, owner, consistency with other project records and suitability for decision-making. The project initiator should own checks until a formal project manager or controls lead is appointed.
PEQ06 - How are confidentiality, security classification, access permissions and personal or commercially sensitive information managed?
Confidentiality and access rules are not yet fully established. Personal, commercial, financial and legal information should be restricted to those who need it. Stakeholder feedback should be handled in line with data protection expectations, and any future public material should avoid disclosing private or commercially sensitive details.
PEQ07 - What reporting cycle is used, which dashboards or reports are produced, and who relies on each output for decisions?
No formal reporting cycle is established. A short monthly project health update would be suitable for the current stage, covering status, decisions needed, key assumptions, risks, actions, evidence gathered and next steps. More formal dashboards should wait until scope, budget and schedule baselines exist.
PEQ08 - How are schedule, cost, risk, actions, changes, decisions and evidence linked so that impacts can be traced across the programme?
Traceability is not yet established. The project should link each major decision to the relevant assumptions, risks, cost impacts, schedule impacts, stakeholder issues and evidence. This can initially be done through a combined decision, assumptions and actions log.
PEQ09 - What backup, disaster-recovery, cyber-resilience and business-continuity arrangements protect project information?
Backup, cyber-resilience and business-continuity arrangements are not yet defined. Until formal systems are selected, project files should be held in a secure backed-up location with controlled access, version history and clear ownership. Sensitive data should not be stored in uncontrolled personal copies.
PEQ10 - What current information gaps, duplicated systems or manual workarounds create the greatest control risk?
The main information gaps are the absence of a confirmed site, sponsor, governance model, affordability model, delivery route, planning advice, stakeholder evidence and cost baseline. The greatest control risk is that architectural or financial assumptions harden before the underlying need and viable operating model are proven.
PQ01 - Who holds the principal accountable roles, and what are their responsibilities and delegated authorities?
Principal accountable roles are not yet formally appointed. David Winter is currently acting as project initiator. The project still needs an accountable sponsor, project manager, planning lead, design lead, finance or commercial lead, legal adviser, stakeholder lead and eventual operator or housing management lead.
PQ02 - What organisation structure is currently in place, and which key posts are vacant, interim, duplicated or unclear?
No formal organisation structure is currently in place. The project is in an initiator-led concept stage. Key posts including sponsor, project manager, technical advisers, finance lead and operator representative are vacant or not yet established.
PQ03 - What capabilities and experience are essential for the current phase, and where are the most significant gaps?
Essential current-phase capabilities include housing need analysis, intergenerational living design, planning feasibility, residential development finance, affordability modelling, legal and tenure structuring, stakeholder engagement and project controls. The most significant gaps are formal sponsorship, specialist advice and a confirmed operating model.
PQ04 - What resource plan exists, including mobilisation dates, demand peaks, scarce skills and reliance on contractors or secondees?
A resource plan is not yet established. Near-term resource needs are part-time project leadership and targeted specialist input for feasibility. Demand will increase if the project moves into option appraisal, planning preparation, funding applications or procurement.
PQ05 - How are contractors, consultants, delivery partners and suppliers selected, instructed, supervised and held accountable?
Contractor and consultant arrangements are not yet established. Early advisers should be selected for relevant housing, planning, legal, financial and community engagement experience, with clear briefs, deliverables, review points and decision records. Accountability should be tied to written outputs rather than informal advice.
PQ06 - Which organisational interfaces are most vulnerable to gaps, duplication, delay or conflicting authority?
Vulnerable interfaces include sponsor ownership, design versus affordability, planning advice versus concept ambition, legal structure versus funding, and resident needs versus operational practicality. These could create delay or conflicting authority unless roles and decision rights are clarified early.
PQ07 - What is the formal meeting, review and decision-making rhythm, and how are actions and decisions recorded?
A formal meeting rhythm is not yet established. For the current stage, a short regular project review should record actions, decisions, assumptions, risks and evidence needs. Decisions should be dated, owned and linked to the question or issue they resolve.
PQ08 - What escalation routes and thresholds apply when safety, cost, schedule, quality, commercial or regulatory limits are threatened?
Escalation thresholds are not yet formally defined. Issues should be escalated immediately if they threaten legal compliance, safety, affordability, planning viability, funding credibility, stakeholder trust or the ability to proceed to the next decision gate.
PQ09 - What workload, continuity, succession or key-person risks could weaken delivery or assurance?
The main continuity risk is reliance on a small number of individuals during the concept stage. There is also risk from lack of formal sponsor ownership, absence of specialist review, and loss of context if decisions and assumptions are not recorded clearly.
PQ10 - What behaviours, incentives or cultural factors may discourage challenge, delay escalation or distort reporting?
Potential cultural risks include enthusiasm for the initial H-shaped concept discouraging proper option testing, optimism about affordability before costs are evidenced, and informal decision-making replacing controlled challenge. The project should deliberately record uncertainties and invite challenge before commitments are made.
FQ01 - What funding sources, approvals and financial commitments currently support the project?
Funding sources, approvals and financial commitments are not yet established. The project has no confirmed development budget or committed funding in the current record. Early work should identify whether funding could come from private investment, family equity, social investment, grant support, debt finance, public-sector partnership or a mixed model.
FQ02 - What is the current estimate or budget, what is its basis, and what level of confidence or maturity does it have?
No reliable current estimate or approved budget exists. Any cost figures at this stage should be treated as indicative only until a site, design brief, area schedule, specification, procurement route and risk allowance are developed. Estimate confidence is therefore low.
FQ03 - How are the cost baseline, contingency, management reserve and quantified risk exposure established and controlled?
Cost baseline, contingency, management reserve and quantified risk exposure are not yet established. These should be created after the feasibility scope and initial option set are agreed, with contingencies reflecting planning, design, construction, funding and operating-model risks.
FQ04 - How are actual cost, commitments, accruals, forecast outturn and variance reported and reconciled?
Actual cost, commitments, accruals and forecast reporting are not yet established because the project is pre-baseline and appears to have no approved spend profile. Once feasibility expenditure begins, commitments and actuals should be reconciled against the approved feasibility budget at each reporting point.
FQ05 - Which contract and commercial models are proposed, and where do liability, incentive or risk-allocation concerns remain?
No contract or commercial model has been selected. Options may include private development, joint venture, community-led housing, housing association partnership, leasehold or rental models, or a hybrid family-investment structure. Liability, ownership, resident rights, operating risk and affordability protections remain unresolved.
FQ06 - What major procurement commitments or long-lead decisions must be made before full certainty is available?
No major procurement commitments should be made yet. Near-term decisions may be needed for professional feasibility advice before full certainty is available, but land, construction, long-lead design and supplier commitments should wait until sponsor approval, funding route and planning feasibility are clearer.
FQ07 - What current or foreseeable changes, claims, disputes or commercial exposures could materially affect the project?
No known changes, claims or disputes are currently established. Foreseeable commercial exposures include cost escalation, planning delay, site constraints, funding withdrawal, unresolved ownership or tenure model, and affordability assumptions proving unworkable.
FQ08 - How are value, affordability, whole-life cost and alternative options challenged before major commitments are approved?
Value and affordability should be challenged through option appraisal, whole-life cost comparison, sensitivity testing and review of alternative design and tenure models. The project should test whether the concept delivers better outcomes than conventional separate housing, multi-generational homes or other affordable housing routes.
FQ09 - What financial controls, segregation of duties, audit rights and record-keeping requirements apply?
Formal financial controls are not yet established. Before spend is committed, the project should define approval limits, segregation of duties, procurement records, invoice approval, audit trail, budget ownership and retention of commercial evidence.
FQ10 - What affordability, cash-flow or funding thresholds could cause delay, rephasing or loss of project viability?
Affordability thresholds are not yet established. Potential viability risks include household payment levels exceeding target affordability, insufficient capital or grant funding, interest-rate or construction-cost increases, and operating or maintenance costs that make the model unattractive or unsustainable.
MQ01 - Who are the principal internal and external stakeholders, and what authority, influence or exposure does each have?
Principal stakeholders are expected to include prospective younger households, older family members or residents, the project initiator and future sponsor, local planning authority, neighbours and community representatives, funders, legal and design advisers, potential operators, and any housing or care partners. Their exact authority and influence are not yet mapped.
MQ02 - What are the principal expectations, concerns and potential points of conflict among those stakeholders?
Likely expectations include affordability, privacy, independence, safety, dignity, good design, financial fairness and community benefit. Potential conflicts may arise around shared space, ownership, inheritance or equity, resident eligibility, planning acceptability, neighbour concerns, and the balance between family connection and personal autonomy.
MQ03 - What communication and engagement channels are used, and how is feedback converted into controlled actions or decisions?
Formal engagement channels are not yet established. Early channels should include structured interviews, workshops, meeting notes and written feedback. Feedback should be converted into controlled actions, assumptions, risks or decisions rather than being left as informal commentary.
MQ04 - How are regulatory, governmental and local-authority relationships coordinated and documented?
Regulatory, governmental and local-authority relationships are not yet coordinated. Early engagement should begin with planning and housing officers once a site or locality is identified, with all advice recorded, dated and linked to the relevant design or viability decision.
MQ05 - What impacts, benefits or burdens may be experienced by communities, workers, customers and the local economy?
Potential benefits include improved housing access for younger households, better use of older-generation assets, family support, reduced isolation, and local economic activity during development and operation. Potential burdens include planning impacts, parking or service pressures, construction disruption, affordability exclusion, and operational complexity.
MQ06 - What consultation commitments, undertakings or stakeholder promises have been made, and how are they tracked?
No formal consultation commitments, undertakings or stakeholder promises are established in the current record. Any future commitments should be logged with owner, due date, evidence requirement and status so that informal promises do not become unmanaged obligations.
MQ07 - What reputational risks, misinformation or unresolved public concerns could undermine confidence in the project?
Reputational risks include the project being seen as unrealistic, exclusionary, financially unclear, planning-led rather than need-led, or as a disguised private development rather than a genuine housing solution. Confidence could also be undermined if affordability claims are made before evidence exists.
MQ08 - What information should be transparent, and what information must remain restricted for legal, commercial, privacy or security reasons?
Transparent information should include the project purpose, decision stage, evidence being gathered, options under consideration and known uncertainties. Restricted information should include personal financial data, legal advice, commercially sensitive cost or land information, private family circumstances and any personal stakeholder data.
MQ09 - How are lessons learned, stakeholder feedback and operating experience captured and incorporated into future decisions?
Lessons learned and stakeholder feedback should be captured in meeting notes, feedback summaries, the decision log and the assumptions register. Each material lesson should either change the option appraisal, update a risk, or be recorded as a reason for maintaining the current approach.
MQ10 - What concise evidence-based update could be issued regularly to demonstrate project health without overstating certainty?
A suitable regular update would state that Project 519 is in early feasibility, summarise evidence gathered, decisions made, key risks, next actions and unresolved assumptions, and avoid presenting the concept as approved or certain until governance, funding, planning and affordability have been tested.