Stalled RAP · Innovate
Recovering a stalled Innovate RAP
Eighteen months into a two-year Innovate RAP, the working group had stopped meeting and nobody could say what had been delivered. The first task was establishing what was actually true.
Utilities provider · 1,200+ staff
Illustrative example. This describes what an engagement of this type typically involves, drawn from common patterns in RAP delivery. It is not an account of a specific client engagement, and no figures shown are measured client results.
The situation
- The RAP had launched with strong visibility, then received no executive attention for over a year
- The working group had lost its executive sponsor to a restructure and quietly stopped meeting
- Some commitments had genuinely been delivered, but nothing had been recorded at the time
- Renewal was approaching with no clear picture of what could be reported
- Internal appetite to progress to a Stretch RAP, driven by reputational rather than delivery considerations
The approach
- 1
Assessment
The engagement started with a RAP health check rather than planning: going action by action to establish what had been delivered, what could still be evidenced, and what had quietly lapsed. Roughly a third of commitments had been delivered without documentation.
- 2
Evidence reconstruction
Where delivery had genuinely occurred, evidence was reconstructed from calendars, invoices, HR records and email — possible, but far more expensive than capturing it at the time would have been.
- 3
Governance reset
A new executive sponsor was appointed with the role written into their performance measures rather than added informally. Terms of reference were rewritten to specify decision rights, and RAP accountability was distributed into business unit position descriptions.
- 4
Honest reassessment
The recommendation was to repeat Innovate rather than progress to Stretch. The delivery track record did not support a Stretch submission, and committing to three years of measurable targets on an unstable foundation would have repeated the same failure at greater cost.
- 5
Evidence system
An evidence capture method was designed against each commitment before the next term began, so that reporting would draw on an existing record rather than another reconstruction.
Where it landed
- A defensible account of what the previous RAP term actually delivered
- Governance re-established with accountability embedded in performance measures rather than goodwill
- A second Innovate RAP pursued deliberately, rather than an over-reaching Stretch submission
- Evidence capture designed in advance for the new term
What this shape of engagement teaches
A RAP surviving a restructure depends on accountability sitting in position descriptions, not in the enthusiasm of particular individuals.
Reconstructing evidence after the fact is possible and expensive; capturing it as you go costs almost nothing.
Repeating a RAP type is permitted and is frequently the more credible choice — the framework is not a ladder you are penalised for climbing slowly.
Other examples
Starting from nothing: a first Reflect RAP
Leadership had committed publicly to a RAP, but nobody internally had run one before and no relationships existed with local Aboriginal organisations. The work was mostly about slowing down.
Read → Progressing · Innovate to StretchBuilding a procurement-led Stretch RAP
A firm with a well-delivered Innovate RAP needed to progress to Stretch, with Indigenous procurement as the centre of gravity ahead of the 2026 IPP threshold change.
Read →Recognise your situation?
If any of this sounds like where your organisation is, a free discovery call will tell you what the realistic next step looks like.