Communications Plan — Version 1.0

This plan defines how Project Catalyst communicates with every stakeholder group — what information they need, how often, in what format, from whom, and through what channel. It covers routine program reporting, governance board communications, regulatory engagement, AI-specific mandatory escalations, change management messaging, and crisis communications. Owned by B. Sullivan (VP Corporate Communications) with Program Director (C. Tyrrell) as primary content source.

1. Communications Objectives & Principles

1.1 Objectives

This communications plan serves four objectives, prioritized in this order:

1. Decision enablement: Governance boards and executive leadership receive the information they need to make timely, informed decisions at phase gates and between them. This is the primary purpose — communications exist to enable governance, not to create administrative overhead.
2. Transparency without overload: Every stakeholder group receives the right level of detail — not too much (which causes disengagement) and not too little (which causes surprise). Executive sponsors need dashboards; team leads need sprint-level detail; frontline staff need reassurance and training; regulators need governance evidence.
3. Risk surfacing: The communications cadence is designed so that risks, issues, and blockers are visible to the right authority level within the time windows defined in the Governance Model escalation framework. No risk should first become visible to an executive at a phase gate — it should have been reported weeks earlier through the standard cadence.
4. Adoption support: Change management communications (Section 7) directly support the program's benefits realization — if frontline staff don't understand, trust, and adopt the AI tools, the operational benefits documented in the CBA will not materialize. Communications are a delivery mechanism for adoption, not a nice-to-have.

1.2 Principles

• No surprises: Executive sponsors should never learn about a material risk, issue, or schedule slip for the first time at a phase gate or in a board meeting. The standard reporting cadence exists to surface problems early. If a problem bypasses the cadence and surprises an executive, that is a communications failure to be addressed.
• Right information, right level, right time: Team leads need different information than executives, who need different information than regulators, who need different information than frontline staff. This plan defines separate communication streams for each group rather than broadcasting everything to everyone.
• Mandatory escalation is non-negotiable: The AI-specific escalation notifications in Section 6 are not optional communications — they are governance-mandated notifications with defined time windows. Missing an escalation notification is a governance violation, not a communications oversight.
• Written records: All formal program communications (status reports, board materials, escalation notifications, gate packages) are documented and archived in the project portal. Verbal-only communications for material decisions are not acceptable — if it wasn't written down, it didn't happen for governance purposes.

2. Stakeholder Analysis & Information Needs

3. Internal Program Communications

3.1 Standing Meeting Cadence

3.2 Monthly & Quarterly Communications

4. Executive & Board Communications

4.1 Executive Steering Board

4.2 ACME Board of Directors

4.3 AI Governance Board & EARB

Cadence defined in Governance Model §3.2–3.3. Communications content:

• AI Governance Board (bi-weekly): Model risk status, validation pipeline progress, fairness testing results, responsible AI compliance, regulatory tracker updates, shadow AI detection findings. Ad-hoc sessions for model validation reviews (model-specific review packet distributed 3 business days before).
• EARB (weekly during build phases): Architecture decision log, security posture, integration testing status, platform performance metrics, data residency compliance verification. Ad-hoc sessions for security reviews and integration architecture sign-offs.

5. External & Regulatory Communications

5.1 Regulatory Engagement

5.2 Provider Communications

• PA workflow changes (BRD-01): Provider bulletin issued 60 days before BRD-01 production launch, detailing: new FHIR API capabilities, faster decision timelines, new determination-letter format with detailed denial rationale, and peer-to-peer review process changes. Follow-up bulletin at 30 days and launch day.
• Provider portal enhancements (BRD-02): Provider-facing self-service features communicated through portal notification banner, account manager briefings (top 100 provider groups), and provider newsletter.
• Ongoing: Provider satisfaction survey administered quarterly to measure impact of AI-driven changes on provider experience.

6. AI-Specific Mandatory Escalation Notifications

7. Change Management & Adoption Communications

Change Management communications are owned by G. Okonkwo (Change Lead) and directly support the program's benefits realization. If frontline staff don't adopt the AI tools, the benefits documented in the CBA don't materialize — making communications a delivery mechanism, not an administrative function.

7.1 Communications by Adoption Phase

7.2 Resistance Response

• If adoption metrics (Section 10) indicate resistance (adoption rate <40% at 4 weeks post-launch), the Change Management team conducts rapid assessment: focus groups and 1:1 interviews with non-adopters within 5 business days.
• Resistance response is categorized by root cause: training gap (more/different training), workflow friction (UX adjustment), trust issue (more transparency about AI accuracy and human oversight), or organizational concern (supervisor-level coaching). Different root causes get different responses — not a one-size-fits-all "more training" answer.
• If structural resistance persists after 8 weeks of targeted response, escalate to Executive Steering Board with options analysis (extend opt-in, increase Change Management budget, adjust BRD scope).

8. Crisis Communications Protocol

A "crisis" in the context of this program is an event that could become publicly visible and damage ACME's reputation, regulatory standing, or member trust. The threshold for activating crisis communications is: any event that a reasonable journalist, regulator, or member advocate would consider newsworthy if they learned about it.

8.1 Crisis Categories

8.2 Crisis Response Process

1. Detection & Assessment (0–4 hours): Event identified. Lead communicator assesses severity and public-visibility risk. Executive Sponsor and General Counsel notified.
2. Internal Alignment (4–12 hours): Crisis response team convened (Executive Sponsor, General Counsel, VP Comms, relevant Board chairs, Program Director). Facts confirmed. Talking points developed. Internal communication issued to program team and affected staff.
3. External Response (12–24 hours, if needed): Public statement issued only if: (a) the event is already public or likely to become public, (b) regulatory notification is required, or (c) member notification is required. Statement approved by General Counsel and Executive Sponsor before release.
4. Ongoing Management: Daily situation reports until crisis is resolved. Lessons learned captured. Communications plan updated if the crisis reveals a gap.

9. Communications Tools & Platforms

10. Communications Effectiveness Measurement

Communications effectiveness is measured to ensure the plan is achieving its objectives — not just producing artifacts.

11. Communications Governance & Document Control

• Plan owner: B. Sullivan (VP Corporate Communications) — responsible for plan maintenance, newsletter production, and crisis communications coordination.
• Content source: C. Tyrrell (Program Director) — responsible for program status content, governance reporting, and technical communications content.
• Change management communications: G. Okonkwo (Change Lead) — responsible for adoption messaging, training communications, and resistance response.
• Regulatory communications: R. Thorne (General Counsel) — sole authorized communicator with state regulators, CMS, and NAIC. No other program team member communicates with regulators without General Counsel approval.
• Plan updates: This plan is reviewed quarterly and updated as needed. Material changes (adding or removing communication streams, changing escalation time windows, modifying crisis protocol) require Executive Steering Board notification. Minor clarifications can be made by the Plan owner with Program Director approval.