Project & Delivery LeadershipPlan says three months, history says six to nine. Which number do you commit to?
Twenty-four items — five delivery situations, one evidence question and 18 behavioural statements — measure whether you estimate from what comparable work actually took, manage scope and the critical path, disclose delivery risk early and own outcomes end to end. Four banded competencies and a growth plan come back.
The optimistic and the accommodating instinct both cause the overrun
The five situations are where projects are lost before anyone notices. Your team has reasoned carefully to a three-month estimate while similar past projects in your organisation took six to nine. Midway through, stakeholders bring requests that each look small against a fixed deadline. Everything on the project feels urgent and the team is thin across all of it. A milestone will slip by about two weeks, you will know the exact date in three days, and your most powerful stakeholder hates surprises. The options include the modest buffer, the split-the-difference estimate and waiting three days for a precise answer.
Options are weighted against public delivery research: reference-class forecasting and the planning fallacy, the scope-time-quality trade-off and scope-creep discipline, critical-path focus and prioritising what gates delivery, proactive disclosure of delivery risk, and end-to-end ownership against diffusion of accountability in cross-functional work. Each weight carries a written rationale. The bank is original AssessAll work; no project-management certification body's method or vocabulary is named, and no item tests a process standard. The 18 behavioural statements ask how you actually behave when the plan meets reality, with reverse-keyed items to catch the respondent who agrees with every disciplined-sounding line.
The report bands Execution Discipline, Prioritisation & Focus, Stakeholder Influence and Accountability & Ownership beneath a 0–100 score, each with a coaching interpretation for the delivery you are running now. A narrative generated from your own responses says which delivery habit protects your dates and which quietly eats them. The growth plan is built from the lowest competencies and proposes specific practices — a reference-class check before any commitment, a scope-change protocol, an early-warning rule for stakeholders — and the item review explains every weight so the arithmetic of the four-month buffer is visible.
What you walk away with
Execution Discipline, Prioritisation & Focus, Stakeholder Influence and Accountability & Ownership each land in Emerging, Developing, Strong or Exceptional beneath your 0–100 score. The bars show the common shapes — the disciplined planner who cannot say no to scope, the strong communicator who trusts the bottom-up estimate.
Each band carries a coaching paragraph about what it does in practice: how Developing on Execution Discipline commits to a date, what Strong on Stakeholder Influence tells a surprise-averse sponsor when the slip is certain but the number is not.
Built from your lowest competencies, the plan proposes concrete disciplines — a list of comparable past projects before the next estimate, a written trade-off for every scope request, a rule for disclosing a slip before its size is known — sized to fit the project you are already running.
The item review shows your choice, the evidence-favoured option and the rationale for each weight across all 24 items. Where you added a modest buffer to the plan, the explanation shows why adjusting the inside view rarely closes the gap to what history says.
The report, in three panels
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
Every competency this test declares, scored from the items tagged to it — so the shape is yours, not a template.
Band edges at 40, 60 and 80. Each band carries its own coaching interpretation for that competency.
Built for
- Project, programme and delivery managers accountable for dates they did not fully control
- Engineering, implementation and professional-services leads who estimate and then defend estimates
- PMO heads baselining delivery judgement across a portfolio, independent of certification
- Hiring managers who want an applied measure of delivery judgement rather than a methodology quiz
Overruns are decided at the estimate. Find out which number you would have committed to.
Twenty-four items in about 28 minutes, then four banded competencies, a narrative and a growth plan the moment you finish.
₹999 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
It is not a methodology test and names no process standard. It measures the judgement that turns intent into reliable delivery: estimating from what comparable work actually took, managing scope and the critical path, telling stakeholders about risk before they find out, and owning outcomes end to end across teams. Four competencies — Execution Discipline, Prioritisation & Focus, Stakeholder Influence and Accountability & Ownership — are measured through five situations, an evidence question and 18 behavioural statements.
Each option is weighted against published research on the planning fallacy, scope discipline, critical-path focus, risk disclosure and ownership, with a written rationale per weight. Certification helps with vocabulary but not with the situations, which are built so that the process-correct move — a modest buffer, a precise date in three days — is often the weaker one. Reverse-keyed behavioural statements make a uniformly disciplined self-report read as inconsistent rather than as a high band.
About 22 to 30 minutes within a 28-minute window. You receive a 0–100 score with its band, four banded competencies with coaching interpretations, a radar, a narrative generated from your own responses, a strengths-and-development summary, a growth plan built from your lowest competencies and a full item review with the evidence behind each weight. The report is complete when it arrives; there is nothing further to unlock.
PMO heads use the bands across a portfolio to see whether overruns come from estimating, scope or disclosure, and target coaching accordingly. Hiring managers use them to structure interviews — asking a candidate Developing on Execution Discipline to estimate something and then name the comparable projects. Individually, the growth plan is a checklist for the plan you are running; retake after the next project closes.
Yes. The situations are sector-neutral and method-neutral — an optimistic estimate, creeping scope, a slipping milestone — and the research base is international. Delivery managers in India, the UK, the Gulf, Southeast Asia and North America sit identical items and receive the same report. The assessment is priced in INR and USD, and the price on this page is the full price.
Each battery takes one management capability — delegation, coaching, conflict, influence, decision-making, change — and measures it through situational judgement scored against published evidence, with a competency profile, coaching interpretations and a prioritised growth plan. For the level-by-level readiness verdicts, see Leadership & Management Premium.
See the leadership catalogue →Methodology: Original AssessAll scenarios and items operationalising public, well-established delivery-leadership constructs: reference-class forecasting and the planning fallacy in estimation (Kahneman & Tversky; Flyvbjerg); the scope-time-quality trade-off and scope-creep discipline; critical-path focus and prioritising what gates delivery; proactive disclosure of delivery risk to stakeholders; and end-to-end ownership against diffusion of accountability in cross-functional work. Situational-judgement scoring is literature-keyed with a documented per-option rationale citing the evidence for each weight. Generic public constructs only; no trademarked methodology or instrument names and no vendor-coined vocabulary, and no items copied or paraphrased from any branded programme. Flagship items are tagged for optional human SME validation.