Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Design the Board Update Framework
2 weeks
Produce a written framework for recurring board updates covering: update frequency and format, standing sections (financials, key metrics, risks, strategic progress), decision escalation criteria, and the pre-board preparation process (who inputs, who reviews, lead time). Interview at least one board member or C-suite executive to understand what makes a board update useful versus a waste of time. Incorporate their feedback into the framework.
Proof required
Submit the board update framework document (min 700 words) plus notes from your interview with a board member or C-suite executive, showing their specific feedback and how you incorporated it.
What gets checked
- Framework covers all four standing sections with concrete format guidance
- Interview notes show specific board member or C-suite feedback, not generic advice
- Feedback is visibly incorporated — not just noted and ignored
Common mistakes
- Framework is designed without any board member input — produces something the board doesn't want
- Interview feedback is generic ('keep it concise') rather than specific to this organisation
- Decision escalation criteria are vague — no clear trigger for what reaches the board
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm the interview was with a board member or C-suite executive — not a junior advisor
- Ask the submitter what the board member said was most often missing from updates they receive
- Check the decision escalation criteria are specific — can they give an example of a recent decision that would or wouldn't have triggered escalation?
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Run Three Full Board Update Cycles
12 weeks
Execute three consecutive board updates using the framework you designed. Each update must go through the full preparation process (data collection, narrative drafting, pre-board review with CEO or relevant executive), be delivered to the board or equivalent executive group, and produce documented feedback. After each update, note what worked and what to improve.
Proof required
Submit the three board update documents or decks, plus documented feedback received after each (emails, debrief notes, or similar). A board member or C-suite executive must confirm the cadence ran and provide a brief written assessment of its quality.
What gets checked
- Three updates ran at the intended cadence — no skipped cycles
- Each update went through pre-board review with a named executive
- Feedback is documented after each cycle and incorporated into the next
Common mistakes
- Cadence breaks after the first update — business pressure interrupts the cycle
- Pre-board review is skipped — updates go to the board unreviewed
- Feedback is received but not acted on — each update is the same regardless
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm three cycles ran — ask for dates of each board update
- Verify a board member or C-suite executive provided the written assessment — not internal staff
- Ask the submitter what changed between update 1 and update 3 based on feedback
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Navigate a Board Crisis Update
2 weeks
Prepare and deliver a board update under crisis conditions — a material negative event (missed targets, significant risk, personnel change, regulatory issue, or competitive threat) that requires more than a routine update. The update must include: accurate bad news delivered clearly, root cause analysis, near-term mitigation actions, and a recovery trajectory. Collect post-meeting feedback from at least one board member or investor on how the crisis communication was handled.
Proof required
Submit the crisis board update document or deck, root cause analysis (min 400 words), and written feedback from at least one board member or investor on how the communication was handled. The reviewer must have been in the room or have read the material.
What gets checked
- Bad news is communicated accurately and directly — no minimising or burying
- Root cause analysis is specific and honest — not a list of external factors
- Recovery trajectory is realistic — not a best-case scenario presented as a plan
Common mistakes
- Crisis update softens the news — board is not fully informed of the severity
- Root cause analysis blames externals rather than identifying controllable factors
- Recovery plan is aspirational rather than resourced and committed
Resources
Foundationstart here
What a verifier looks for
- Ask the submitter what they considered not telling the board and why they ultimately disclosed it
- Confirm the feedback came from a board member or investor who received the update — not a rehearsal audience
- Check the recovery trajectory has named owners and dates — not 'the team will address this'
You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.
Part of