Across several recent conversations and group discussions, the subject of information requirements — necessary for executing critical roles in product development, manufacturing, and supply chain — has come up again. Over the past several years, we have built a simple yet powerful framework to address the recurring challenge of obtaining critical information at the right time.
In supply chain planning, for example, imagine a critical milestone scheduled for June. Typically, teams backtrack from that date to identify key information inputs and decisions needed as early as January or March.
While project management tools provide scheduling functions based on specific dates, the reality is: if these date-based schedules do not evolve into sustained operating frameworks, they are often forgotten and inconsistently reapplied across projects. For instance, a November product launch may backtrack key readiness activities to June, yet without a framework, cross-functional groups may still trigger work too late, risking the milestone. Although organizations conceptually understand time, dates, and durations, we consistently observe a low appreciation of lead times across corporate functions.
The practical evidence is unfortunately clear: teams frequently encounter tight, stressful timelines because the triggers to initiate work were delayed, not because the execution was poor, but because the framework for timely activation was missing.
This lead us to a critical insight: tight timelines often stem from the absence of a standardized timeline framework with predictable, cross-functionally understood triggers as shown in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: a “T minus” framework mapped to Day 0 (go-live) and aligned with Project Specific Dates.
Triggers for starting critical activities depend heavily on information availability. However, it is not merely whether information is available — it is whether the certainty of that information is sufficient at the right time.
Figure 2 illustrates that if a team needs two months to react effectively (Point A), then if information is available only two weeks (Point B) before the milestone, it is inadequate regardless of its accuracy. Thus, the issue is not perfection of information, but sufficiency of reaction time. Information must be shared early enough to allow for necessary actions, even if that information is imperfect. While the tension between accuracy and timing is an age-old challenge without a definitive solution, organizations can significantly mitigate risks by raising awareness and intentionally designing standard frameworks around timing needs.
To build organizational resilience and predictability, companies must establish timeline guidelines, particularly for high-impact projects like product launches and regulatory filings. These guidelines form the operational backbone for timely execution across functions. One proven structure is the “T minus” framework. In this model, Day 0 represents the go-live date. Activities are scheduled against relative time markers: for instance, T-30 (30 days before), T-60 (60 days before), and so on. This framework detaches planning from calendar-specific dates and shifts the focus to lead times and necessary durations, creating organizational consistency. Refer to Figure 1 again to visualize the “T-minus” mapping.
Instead of saying “Have marketing materials ready by September 15,” the framework would state, “Marketing materials must be ready by T-30,” whatever the launch date is. This reduces confusion across projects and builds repeatable execution muscle. Of course, you will need the September date for project specific alignment, but organizational understanding of the activity as a T-30 day activity enables repeatability and consistency of understanding across projects.
In other words, The T-minus framework does not eliminate the need for project-specific scheduling tools, but it provides a reusable reference architecture that dramatically improves timing predictability. A simple timeline table or Gantt chart structured around T-minus milestones can further clarify deliverable expectations.
Establishing a T-minus timeline framework and embedding it within functional playbooks ensures that the understanding of lead times and critical triggers becomes part of the organization’s operating system, not dependent on individual memory or ad hoc planning. Functional Playbooks should map activities to lead time structures: what must happen at T-120, T-90, T-60, T-30, etc. This approach creates clarity and accountability. Cross-functional launch teams using such Standards and Playbooks at major pharma companies have achieved significant acceleration and/or stayed on timeline despite risks and set backs.
By building these frameworks and playbooks into standard operating practice, organizations can move from reactive firefighting to proactive, scalable execution, while driving better outcomes across product development, supply chain, and regulatory functions. Just like in many other environments, Standards need to be established for the timing and accuracy (or lack thereof) in information sharing. A cross-functional understanding of these standards (i.e. expectations) enables on-time delivery of projects and can even accelerate results.
Wish to discuss more about Advanced Project Management Practices and Playbooks? Schedule a quick connect with Marcos Buelvas here.
