1. Why This Document Exists
At 262 people across 25 teams, no individual can know what the program is doing. That is not a failure of management attention; it is arithmetic. A program of this size either substitutes structure for personal knowledge or it substitutes optimism, and the second option is how AI programs put an unvalidated model in front of a member.
So this document is not a directory. It states what each function owns, and it states the thing an org chart actively obscures: which decisions have been deliberately placed beyond the reach of the person accountable for delivery.
2. The Shape of the Organization
Four authority levels, and the most informative thing about them is where the Program Director is not.
| Level | Authority | Held by | Decides |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Strategic | M. Kavanagh, ACME COO (Executive Sponsor) | Program viability, budget re-baseline, regulatory escalation, board deadlock, contingency >$1M |
| 2 | Governance | Three boards — see §3 | Phase-gate sign-off, model production release, architecture approval, changes beyond Program Director authority |
| 3 | Program | C. Tyrrell, Program Director | Day-to-day delivery coordination, schedule movement within ±2 weeks, resource changes |
| 4 | Execution | Team and BRD leads | Task sequencing and method within their own scope |
3. The Three Boards — and Why There Are Three
One board would be simpler and would concentrate exactly the authority this design is trying to separate. The Program Director chairs none of them. He assembles evidence, submits gate packages, and receives decisions.
| Board | Chair | Owns | Blocking power |
|---|---|---|---|
| Executive Steering Board | M. Kavanagh (COO) | Phase-gate sign-off, scope for Years 2 and 3, regulatory and reputational risk | A phase gate without ESB approval does not advance. |
| AI Governance Board | S. Khurana (AI Governance Director) | Model production release, fairness and bias posture, clinical and privacy acceptability | No model to production without its approval. |
| Enterprise Architecture Review Board | D. Chen | Technical fit, platform standards, security sign-off | No architecture change without EARB sign-off. |
⚠ No board may overrule another. Where two disagree, the conflict escalates to Level 1 for resolution rather than being settled by whichever chair is more senior or more insistent. That rule is what stops a three-board structure collapsing into one board with two advisory committees.
4. The Functions That Exist To Be Able To Say No
Four of the 25 teams are structurally independent of delivery. They are worth naming together, because their independence is the mechanism rather than a courtesy.
| Function | Lead | Independence mechanism |
|---|---|---|
| Independent Model Validation (6) | P. Okafor | ⚠ Reports through a different authority chain than the BRD delivery teams — it does not report to the Program Director, and its sign-off is a precondition, not an input |
| Data Privacy Office (5) | E. Sato, Chief Privacy Officer | Sits on the AI Governance Board; privacy determinations are not delivery trade-offs |
| SOX / Financial Controls (6) | — | Control testing scope is not set by the program |
| Clinical / Medical Policy (6) | Dr. N. Patel, CMO | Clinical acceptability is a stop, not a factor to be balanced against velocity |
5. The Delivery Organization
The remaining teams do the work. Three BRDs carry the AI capability itself; the rest are the platform, quality and enablement functions that any program of this size needs.
| Grouping | Teams | Owns | Does not own |
|---|---|---|---|
| Program Leadership & PMO | 16 people | Integrated plan, reporting, gate packages, dependency management | Any gate decision |
| The three BRDs | Claims & Prior Auth; Member/Provider UX; Underwriting & Risk | Requirements, build, and the model within their domain | Whether their own model is fit for production |
| Data & Cloud AI Platform | 20 people | The platform every BRD builds on | BRD-level scope |
| QA & Testing | 18 people | Test strategy, execution, quality evidence at each gate | The gate decision itself |
| Cybersecurity, IT Ops, Enterprise Architecture | 28 people | Security posture, environments, technical standards | — |
| Change, Training, Comms, UX, HR | 26 people | Adoption, readiness, workforce impact | Whether the business is ready — they report it, they cannot create it |
⚠ A BRD team does not certify its own model. It builds it, evidences it, and hands it to a validation function it does not control. ***This is the single most transferable idea in the suite: the people who build a model are the worst-placed people to judge whether it should ship, and no amount of integrity fixes that — only structure does.***
6. Who Decides What
| Decision | Recommends | Decides | Can be overridden by |
|---|---|---|---|
| Task sequencing within a team | — | Team lead | Program Director |
| Schedule movement ≤ 2 weeks | Team leads | Program Director | The relevant board |
| Schedule movement > 2 weeks, or any scope/budget change | Program Director | Governance board | Level 1, on deadlock only |
| Architecture change | Enterprise Architecture | EARB | Level 1, on deadlock only |
| Phase gate | Program Director (assembles the package) | Executive Steering Board | — |
| Model to production | BRD team | Independent Model Validation + AI Governance Board, both | ⚠ Nobody. Not the Sponsor, not another board, not schedule pressure. |
7. How This Compares To the Other Programs Here
| Question | Catalyst (this suite) | Lighthouse (stage-gate) | PM / Agile (commercial) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who chairs the deciding body? | Not the Program Director — three separate chairs | The Program Manager, without a vote | The Program Manager, as chair |
| What stops the work? | A failed validation, unappealably | A gate decision | A sponsor decision |
| PM's unilateral schedule authority | ±2 weeks | Within the gate window | Within the approved envelope |
| What is being protected? | The member on the other side of the model | The capital decision | The delivery commitment |