arrow_backBack to Portfolio
Measuring Where Delivery Data Breaks Down

IEM Roadmap:
Building the Methodology in the Open

A method for identifying and measuring decision-risk caused by incomplete, disconnected, or low-confidence delivery data. I publish it as it takes shape, including the results that weren’t flattering — a full audit against 29 project-management standards scored just over 50 out of 100, which is the point of running it.

Illustration accompanying the IEM roadmap
Illustration for The Architecture

The Architecture

What It Covers

IEM-PM

Program & Portfolio Data Integrity

Measures delivery-data gaps across projects, traces each discrepancy to its root origin, and scores reporting integrity 0–100 on evidence alone — no self-assessment, no narrative.

Field-tested, not finished. A full audit against 29 project-management standards scored just over 50 out of 100 and surfaced 4 genuine gaps. Two further audits ran on live client-engagement data. 9 of the 29 standards are packaged as audit-cited checklists; the remaining 20 are not.

Read the founding white paper
IEM-AIS & IEM-CS

AI Security Lab

Security for AI and AI for security — red-teaming AI systems and running AI-assisted security operations — tracked on their own dedicated page.

Go to AI Security Lab

What was actually tested in production — not what’s planned, not what’s theoretical.

IEM-PM

Validated Against Real Audits

  • A real audit of a live, fast-moving client project caught genuine errors in the evidence base: mismatched costs, conflicting dates, a missing risk entry.
  • A full audit against 29 project-management standards scored the portfolio just over 50 out of 100 and surfaced 4 genuine gaps. The score measures the evidence, not the team — around 50 is what an unaudited portfolio typically looks like, which is the reason to run it.
  • Two further audits ran on live client-engagement data — one against the client’s own process, one against outside standards.
  • 9 of the 29 standards are packaged as audit-cited checklists. The other 20 are not yet.

Where It Stands

Built and field-tested. Audit engine proved against 29 standards and live client data across three real audits.

In progress. Founding white paper published; a practitioner article on delivery-data integrity in draft.

Illustration for The Road Ahead

The Road Ahead

IEM-PM
Q3 2026Completed

Engine Field-Validated

Built and proved the audit engine against 29 real project-management standards and live client data. Packaged as a ready-to-install tool.

Q4 2026In progress

Publish the Body of Work

Foundational white paper published. Regular LinkedIn series and a practitioner article on PMO data integrity, in draft for ProjectManagement.com.

Q1 – Q2 2027

Validate in the Field

Conference talks, field-observation case studies, and published patterns — including potential PMI webinars and blog contributions.

H2 2027+

Codify the Discipline

A long-form reference, and adoption of the methodology beyond the founding domain.