KEVOS® Project Delivery Handbook
Zoo Relocation Project—Part 5: Implementation Staging Plan
The CEO's letter explicitly permits a staged relocation. A practical KEVOS handbook for project delivery teams.
In this handbook article
- The Challenge
- The PM Framework Applied
- Step 1: Define staging criteria
- Step 2: Define the stages
- Step 3: Stage gates — non-negotiable decision points
- Step 4: Rollback options
- Step 5: Stage-to-schedule overlay
- Step 6: Dual-site operations protocols
- Step 7: Stage-level success criteria
- The Result
- The Pitfalls
- Knowledge Check
- Key Takeaways
- References
The CEO's letter explicitly permits a staged relocation. Part 5 turns that one-line permission into a full phased delivery plan with stage gates, rollback options, and dual-site protocols.
Series recap. Parts 1–4 produced the Charter, Stakeholder Plan, Scope Baseline, WBS, Schedule, and Risk Register. Part 5 addresses the requirement that appears in the Group Report rubric explicitly: the Implementation Staging Plan.
The Challenge
Read the CEO's letter carefully and one sentence stands out:
"It will be advantageous to acquire the site as soon as possible so that a staged relocation can commence. The Zoo accepts that some exhibits may be shut down and relocated prior to the closure of the Zoo to the public."
This is not throwaway language. The CEO has pre-authorised phased delivery, signalling that the board has already accepted the operational complexity of running old and new sites simultaneously.
"Staged relocation" hides enormous complexity. It implies decisions about: which exhibits move first and on what criteria, how long both sites operate, when the old site closes (a one-way door), how staff are deployed during the overlap, what the exit trigger is from each stage, and what the rollback option is if a stage fails.
The PM Framework Applied
Step 1: Define staging criteria
Before deciding which exhibits move in which stage, establish what makes an exhibit a good candidate for early movement. A weighted scoring model:
| Criterion | Weight | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Animal welfare sensitivity | 30% | High-sensitivity species move last, when the new site is fully mature |
| Enclosure reuse complexity | 20% | Low salvage-rebuild complexity = earlier move |
| Regulatory approval status | 20% | Permits already in hand = early-stage candidate |
| Visitor draw | 15% | Major attractions remain at old site to preserve revenue |
| Infrastructure independence | 10% | Shared systems make detachment harder |
| Staff availability | 5% | Willing specialist keepers enable earlier movement |
Each candidate exhibit is scored against each criterion, weighted, and summed. High scores = early-stage; low scores = late-stage.
Step 2: Define the stages
Relationship details
| From | Relationship | To |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 0 — Pre-Move — Months 1–6 | leads to | Stage 1 — Early Migration — Months 7–11 |
| Stage 1 — Early Migration — Months 7–11 | leads to | Gate Decision — Month 12 |
| Gate Decision — Month 12 | leads to | Stage 2 — Full Migration — Months 13–16 |
| Stage 2 — Full Migration — Months 13–16 | leads to | Stage 3 — Commissioning — Months 17–18 |
The red Gate Decision box is the most consequential decision on the entire project. Until that moment, both sites are open. After, the old site closes irreversibly and the project enters a race against the 18-month deadline while generating zero visitor revenue.
Step 3: Stage gates — non-negotiable decision points
Every stage ends with a formal stage gate. Four possible outcomes (PRINCE2-influenced):
- Go — proceed as planned
- Go with conditions — proceed with remedial actions in parallel
- Hold — pause until conditions met
- Stop — escalate to board
| Gate | Entry Criteria (all required) |
|---|---|
| Gate 1 (S0 → S1) | Lease executed; Stage 1 permits approved; enclosures commissioned; transport contractor mobilised; vet-signed protocols |
| Gate 2 (S1 → Decision) | Stage 1 animals in quarantine with zero casualties; Stage 2 construction ≥ 70%; sale contracts exchanged |
| Gate 3 (Decision → S2) | Sale complete; grant drawn; Stage 2 enclosures commissioned; high-sensitivity protocols confirmed |
| Gate 4 (S2 → S3) | All animals relocated; quarantine clear; regulatory final inspection passed |
| Gate 5 (S3 → Ops) | Soft opening complete; visitor flow tested; board sign-off on opening date |
Gates are not performative. They are the PM's contractual instrument for refusing to proceed into a stage that is not ready.
Step 4: Rollback options
Rollback narrows dramatically as the project progresses:
| Stage | Rollback Option | Cost |
|---|---|---|
| Stage 0 | Full cancellation; limited sunk cost | Low |
| Stage 1 | Return early-moved animals; halt construction | Moderate |
| Decision | Delay closure 30–60 days via bridging finance | Moderate |
| Stage 2 | No rollback — old site closed, animals in transit | Contingency only |
| Stage 3 | No rollback — commissioning must succeed | Emergency only |
Gates at Stage 1 and the Decision Point are the last points at which rollback is cheap.
Step 5: Stage-to-schedule overlay
| Workstream | Activity | Type | Timing / dependency / duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stage 0 | Planning & Charter | Activity | done · s0a · 2025-01-01 · 30d |
| Stage 0 | Site Acquisition | Activity | done · s0b · 2025-02-01 · 90d |
| Stage 0 | Design & Permits | Activity | s0c · 2025-04-01 · 120d |
| Stage 0 | Gate 1 | Milestone | milestone · g1 · 2025-07-01 · 0d |
| Stage 1 | Stage 1 Construction | Activity | s1a · 2025-07-01 · 90d |
| Stage 1 | Low-Sensitivity Move | Activity | s1b · 2025-09-15 · 60d |
| Stage 1 | Stage 1 Quarantine | Activity | s1c · 2025-11-15 · 30d |
| Stage 1 | Gate 2 | Milestone | milestone · g2 · 2025-12-15 · 0d |
| Decision | Sale Completion | Activity | crit · ds · 2025-12-15 · 30d |
| Decision | Public Closure | Milestone | milestone · dp · 2026-01-15 · 0d |
| Decision | Gate 3 | Milestone | milestone · g3 · 2026-01-15 · 0d |
| Stage 2 | High-Sensitivity Move | Activity | crit · s2a · 2026-01-15 · 90d |
| Stage 2 | Enclosure Transfer | Activity | crit · s2b · 2026-01-15 · 120d |
| Stage 2 | Staff Transition | Activity | s2c · 2026-02-01 · 90d |
| Stage 2 | Gate 4 | Milestone | milestone · g4 · 2026-05-15 · 0d |
| Stage 3 | Commissioning | Activity | s3a · 2026-05-15 · 45d |
| Stage 3 | Soft Opening | Activity | s3b · 2026-06-30 · 14d |
| Stage 3 | Launch | Milestone | milestone · launch · 2026-07-15 · 0d |
Step 6: Dual-site operations protocols
During Stage 1, the Zoo operates two sites simultaneously. This is the most operationally complex period and typically under-planned. The staging plan must specify:
- Staffing split — which staff work where on which days
- Asset tracking — inventory as it moves between sites
- Veterinary coverage — full vet support at both sites
- Communications — consistent messaging about which exhibits are where
- Emergency response — incident protocols working across both sites
- Security — cover at a progressively emptying site
- Utilities — progressive decommissioning of old site utilities
Relationship details
| From | Relationship | To |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibits | leads to | Exhibits |
| Exhibits | leads to | transfer |
| Equipment | leads to | Equipment |
| Equipment | leads to | transfer |
| Month 1 | leads to | Exhibits |
| Month 6 | leads to | Staff |
| Month 12 | leads to | Equipment |
| Month 18 | leads to | Equipment |
Step 7: Stage-level success criteria
Each stage has its own success criteria:
| Stage | Criteria |
|---|---|
| Stage 0 | Charter signed; site selected; permits lodged; design ≥ 80% |
| Stage 1 | 100% low-sensitivity moved with zero casualties; no welfare incidents; staff morale ≥ baseline |
| Decision | Sale proceeds received; Stage 2 inspection-ready; board endorsement |
| Stage 2 | 100% animals moved; old site vacated; all staff transitioned |
| Stage 3 | All systems passing final inspection; soft opening positive |
The Result
The Implementation Staging Plan is now a standalone controlled document. It is referenced by every other planning artefact: the schedule shows gates as milestones, the risk register tags risks by stage, the communications plan has stage-specific messaging, and the budget has stage-specific spend profiles.
The Pitfalls
- Treating staging as just "chunking the schedule." A staging plan has its own gate logic and rollback analysis.
- Under-investing in dual-site operations. Teams plan move-out and move-in but forget they are running two operations with the same staff and budget during overlap.
- Making gates advisory. If a gate can be overridden without sponsor escalation, it is not a gate.
- Locking the stage structure before risk analysis. Risks may reveal early candidates are not actually safe to move first.
- Ignoring the emotional weight of the Decision Point. Closing the old site is a cultural moment for staff, members, and community — the plan must include ceremony, not just logistics.
- Treating rollback as defeatism. Defining rollback is diligence. A PM who cannot describe how to undo each stage is not ready to execute it.
Knowledge Check
- During Stage 1 quarantine, two relocated birds show severe stress. The vet recommends return to the old site (still open). What does the staging plan require, and which gate is now in jeopardy?
- The sale is delayed 45 days, pushing the Decision Point beyond the planned date. Which stages are affected and what are your options?
- A board member asks whether Stage 1 and Stage 2 can be merged to save time. Draft a one-paragraph response explaining why the staging structure exists.
Key Takeaways
- The CEO's one-line "staged relocation" permission implies a complete phased-delivery governance structure.
- A staging plan is a separate controlled document overlaying the WBS and schedule with gate-based governance.
- Stage gates have four outcomes and must have non-negotiable entry criteria.
- Rollback options diminish rapidly as the project progresses.
- Dual-site operations during stage overlap is the most frequently under-planned element.
- The decision to close the old site is a one-way door — the most consequential decision in the project.
References
- Project Management Institute 2017, A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), 6th edn, PMI, Newtown Square, PA.
- Office of Government Commerce 2017, Managing Successful Projects with PRINCE2, 6th edn, TSO, London.
- Turner, JR 2014, Handbook of Project-Based Management, 4th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Morris, PWG 2013, Reconstructing Project Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.
- University of South Australia 2015, MPM411 Zoo Relocation Project Brief, UniSA, Adelaide.