Go / No-Go Review

Practices lose more money on projects they won than on ones they did not. The review is worth doing because it is written down: a decision with reasoning attached can be read back in a year against what happened, and that is the only way the judgement improves.

Workflow

Step 1. Establish the practice's own factors, once

On the first run, build the factor list with the practice and keep it. Suggested starting set, to be edited rather than adopted:

Factor	What it asks
Relationship	Do we know them, and did the last one go well?
Decision process	Do we know who decides, on what basis, and when?
Funding	Is it funded, and is the funding conditional?
Competition	Who else, how many, and is anyone incumbent?
Fit	Is this what we do, or what we would like to say we do?
Reference value	Does winning it get us the next three?
Fee and terms	Is the fee viable and are the terms signable?
Capacity	Can we staff it, with whom, and what does it displace?
Risk	Delivery method, programme, client's history with claims
Pursuit cost	What does chasing it cost, and what does that displace?

"Fit" and "capacity" are the two that get scored optimistically, and they are the two that predict a bad project rather than a lost one.

Step 2. Score, and write the reason beside every score

Factor	Score	Reason	Confidence	What would change it

A score with no reason is not recorded. The reason is the part that is worth anything in a year; the number is not.

Confidence is about what you actually know. A high score on a factor nobody has information about is the most dangerous cell in the table, and it gets flagged rather than averaged away.

Step 3. Ask the four questions a score cannot answer

Regardless of the total:

• Is there an incumbent, and are we being used to test their price? If so, the odds are not what the score suggests.
• Do we know who actually decides? Not the contact. The decider. If not, the pursuit is being run blind.
• What happens to this pursuit if our best two people get busy? Most proposals are written by the people who are already delivering.
• If we won it tomorrow, would we be pleased? The question people answer honestly only in a room, and the one that catches the projects that should be declined.

Step 4. Name the decision and what it rests on

Record: pursue, decline, or pursue conditionally. Where conditional, name the condition precisely — a fee floor, a terms change, a partner, a staffing commitment — and name who checks it and by when.

Record who decided and when. A decision with no name against it is a decision nobody revisits.

Step 5. Write it so it can be read back

The file carries: the score table with reasons, the four questions, the decision, the decider, the date, and a blank outcome section.

Fill the outcome section later: won or lost, why if known, and if won, how the project actually went against what was scored. Point at lessons-learned. A go/no-go archive with outcomes attached is the only thing that makes the next one better, and it takes two minutes to complete.

Step 6. Save

One file per pursuit, in a consistent location. Ask where on the first run and use the same place after, so the archive accumulates.

Rules

• Never supply weights, thresholds, or a recommendation.
• Every score carries a reason. No reason, no score.
• Flag high scores held with low confidence.
• Ask the four questions regardless of the total.
• Record who decided and when.
• Leave the outcome section, and prompt to fill it when the result is known.

Anti-patterns

• Scoring after the decision has been made, to justify it.
• Scoring fit by what the practice wants to become.
• Scoring capacity on the assumption that current projects will finish on time.
• Averaging away a low-confidence score.
• Pursuing because declining feels like weakness.
• Leaving the outcome section blank forever, which makes the whole archive worthless.
• Treating the total as the decision.

Resources

None. This skill is one file. Output is written at the path you choose and the archive accumulates there.