Six events, not a calendar, decide when the organisational question is worth asking again.
Why it matters when the plan changes
People processes run on an annual cycle because that is when budget allows them, not because that is when the organisation changes. A change of ownership in March does not wait for November, and a scheduled review can arrive after the decision it should inform is already made. Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull note that early information restores options that are gone once a commitment is locked in, which is why timing matters more than cadence.
The tension is that the triggers double as the qualifying questions, and it is not yet settled which of the six recurs most often. Treating all six as equally likely entry points is the honest position while cases are still being gathered. Assuming one is the dominant pattern before enough real instances exist would be a guess dressed up as a finding.
In practice
A group closes an acquisition in spring and schedules its leadership review for the autumn cycle. Between the two, the operating model changes twice and a key dependency moves to a new owner. By the time the review runs, it is answering a question about an organisation that no longer exists, at a cost that has already been paid.
Evidence
Early information restores options that are gone once a commitment is made, which is why the timing of a reading matters more than its cadence.
Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull, Why Strategy Execution Unravels and What to Do About It, Harvard Business Review (2015)
What it cannot tell you
The six triggers tell you when to look again, not which trigger matters most or how severe the change is. They do not rank likelihood or impact, and treating all six as equally weighted is a starting assumption, not a finding, until enough cases exist to test it.
How Atlas reads it
Any one of the six starts a forecast where there is no prior view, and a reforecast where one exists. They are also the first thing Atlas asks about: which specific event, decision, deadline and consequence make the question urgent now. Which of the six most often turns out to be the reason a leader picks up the phone is still being learned.
Questions
Because organisations change on events, not on calendars. Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull, writing in Harvard Business Review in 2015, found that early information preserves options a delayed reading loses once commitments are made. An event-driven rule puts the reading next to the decision it should inform.
A material change in the load on the same arrangement: a deadline pulled forward, a market turning, a cost programme, or a competitor move that changes what the plan demands. The structure has not changed; what it is being asked to carry has.
Yes, and it is the one most often ignored. Sull, Homkes and Sull found that only 9% of managers say they can rely on colleagues in other functions and units all the time, which is exactly the kind of contradicting evidence a reforecast exists to catch rather than defend against.
Frequently, and it matters. A change of ownership usually brings a new operating model and new pressure within two quarters. Where several fire together, the reading has to separate which change is driving which friction, or the recommendation attaches to the wrong cause.
Yes. The scope changes, the questions do not. A business unit facing a new dependency is in the same position as an enterprise facing a new strategy: something the plan relies on has moved, and the prior reading of whether it could be carried is now out of date.