Every failed identity programme had a plan. What it didn’t have was boundaries.
- Mar 24
- 2 min read
Updated: Apr 8
Before a single interview is conducted or a single document reviewed, the most important decision in any identity programme advisory engagement has already been made — or hasn’t.
That decision is scope.
How many institutions will be assessed? How many site visits conducted? What grade of detail is expected in the analysis? What volume of documents will be reviewed? These are not administrative details. They are the boundaries that determine whether the project delivers insight or delivers paper.
And every one of them is governed by the oldest constraint in project management: the triangle of quality, time, and cost. You can have any two. The third adjusts. Pretending otherwise doesn’t change the physics — it just moves the failure to a later phase where it costs more.
The governments we advise often arrive with ambitious scope and compressed timelines. Our first conversation is almost always the same: let’s define what we can deliver to the standard you need, in the time you have, with the resources available. If the triangle doesn’t balance at the start, it won’t balance at the end.
This is not project management theory. It is the difference between an advisory engagement that produces actionable recommendations and one that produces a report nobody implements.
Where does your current programme sit on the triangle — and who made that decision?
SECOIA Executive Consultants Ltd is a Swiss boutique consultancy specialising in identity management, border security, biometrics, secure documents, and ePassports. The firm holds active memberships in ICAO ICBWG, ISO/IEC, and CEN standardisation bodies.
We welcome dialogue with professionals navigating these questions. Reach out through our website , arrange for a meeting or connect with us on LinkedIn.
Comments