# EMBA Strategic Project Plan: [Project title]

> A plan for the in-company strategic project that many Executive MBA
> programmes include: a credit-bearing piece of work in which a
> participant applies the core curriculum to a real strategic question in
> their own organisation, supervised by faculty and sponsored by a senior
> executive. It covers scope, stakeholder map, analysis plan,
> deliverables, governance and confidentiality, with a worked example.
> Source basis: stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984; Mendelow 1981;
> Mitchell, Agle and Wood 1997), hypothesis-driven problem solving, and
> project governance practice; the text is original. Names, credit
> weight and rules of these projects differ by programme, so follow your
> school's handbook first. Replace every `[bracketed]` value and every row
> marked *Example*.

<!--
Guidance: How to use this template
- Fill sections 1 to 3 before you meet your faculty adviser for the first
  time. A sharp question and a named sponsor save weeks.
- Section 8 (confidentiality) must be agreed in writing with your
  employer before any company data leaves company systems.
- The worked example continues the Northfield Outdoor Co. case used in
  mba/emba-sponsorship-proposal: Mai Tran, Director of Store Operations,
  runs a project on store replenishment in one region. Company and
  numbers are fictional; the sizing is re-computable from the library's
  review script.
- Related templates: mba/emba-sponsorship-proposal (why the employer
  funds the programme), mba/mba-field-project-sow and
  mba/mba-field-project-report (client projects with external
  organisations), mba/mba-capstone-project-report (final report format),
  mba/mba-strategy-guide, mba/mba-five-forces-card,
  mba/mba-value-chain-card, mba/mba-inventory-card,
  mba/mba-change-management-card, mba/mba-business-communication-card,
  business/statement-of-work, business/raci, business/business-case,
  business/status-report.
-->

## Document control

<!-- Guidance: Record both the academic side (adviser, credit, deadlines) and the company side (sponsor, classification). Graders and sponsors read different parts of the same plan. -->

| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Document ID | [ESP-001] |
| Project title | [Project title] |
| Participant(s) | [Name, role, organisation] |
| Programme and course | [School, EMBA programme, course code, credits] |
| Faculty adviser | [Name] |
| Company sponsor | [Name, title] |
| Project period | YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD |
| Version | [0.1] |
| Status | [Proposal / Approved / In progress / Final submitted / Graded] |
| Owner | [Participant name] |
| Approvers/reviewers | [Company sponsor], [Faculty adviser], [Legal or data protection contact] |
| Last updated | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Classification | [Company confidential] |

### Approvals

| Role | Name | Decision | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| Company sponsor | [Name] | [Approves scope and data access] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Faculty adviser | [Name] | [Approves academic scope] | YYYY-MM-DD |
| Legal or data protection | [Name] | [Approves confidentiality terms] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 1. What the strategic project is

<!-- Guidance: Read your programme's handbook and write its rules in the table at the end of this section. Programmes differ widely. -->

Many EMBA programmes ask participants to complete a substantial project
inside their own organisation, sometimes called a strategic project, an
action-learning project or an in-company project. The common features
are: a real question that matters to the company's strategy or
performance; the participant as the analyst and change agent, often with
a small team; a faculty adviser who judges the academic quality; a
company sponsor who owns the outcome; and a final report and
presentation graded against academic criteria. Some programmes run it
across the second year; others attach it to a single course or make it
optional. Participants from the same company sometimes work as a team,
and some programmes allow a project on a different organisation when the
employer cannot agree.

The project is where much of the employer's return on sponsorship comes
from (see mba/emba-sponsorship-proposal, section 5) and it is the best
evidence you will have of applying the curriculum. It also creates two
tensions you must manage from the start. The first is between academic
and business goals: the school grades rigour, frameworks and reflection;
the sponsor wants a decision and results. The second is between openness
and confidentiality: graders need to see your analysis; the company needs
to protect its data. Sections 7 and 8 deal with both.

| Programme rule | Value for my programme | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Credit weight and grading | [Credits, grading scale, pass mark] | [Handbook section] |
| Individual or team | [Rule] | [Handbook section] |
| Proposal deadline | YYYY-MM-DD | [Handbook section] |
| Interim review | YYYY-MM-DD | [Handbook section] |
| Final report length and format | [Words or pages, appendix rules] | [Handbook section] |
| Final presentation | [Format, audience, length] | [Handbook section] |
| Confidentiality options | [NDA with school, restricted access to report, no library deposit] | [Handbook section] |
| AI and academic integrity rules | [Programme policy] | [Handbook section] |

## 2. Process

<!-- Guidance: The diagram is the default flow. Mark the steps your programme names differently. -->

The flow below runs from question to handover. Confidentiality comes
before any analysis, and the interim review is a real gate: if the
hypotheses fail, go back to the analysis plan rather than forcing the
original answer.

```mermaid
flowchart TD
    A["Identify question with sponsor"] --> B["Draft scope and charter (section 3)"]
    B --> C["Agree confidentiality and data access (section 8)"]
    C --> D["Proposal approved by sponsor and faculty adviser"]
    D --> E["Stakeholder interviews (section 4)"]
    E --> F["Hypotheses and analysis plan (section 5)"]
    F --> G["Data collection and analysis"]
    G --> H{"Interim review: hypotheses supported?"}
    H -- No --> F
    H -- Yes --> I["Options and recommendation"]
    I --> J["Steering committee decision (section 7)"]
    J --> K["Implementation plan and early results"]
    K --> L["Final report and presentation to school"]
    L --> M["Reflection and handover"]
```

## 3. Scope

<!-- Guidance: One question, one decision maker, one decision. If the question has "and" in it, you probably have two projects. -->

### 3.1 The strategic question

Write the question so that it names a decision, a decision maker, a
criterion and a time frame. A useful test is that a yes or no, or a
choice among options, would answer it. Vague topics ("improve our supply
chain") produce reports that describe and do not decide.

- *Weak (topic):* "Analyse inventory management at Northfield."
- *Strong (decision):* "Should Northfield's VP Supply Chain roll out
  weekly, model-based store replenishment to the 22 stores of the Western
  region by Q3 [year], and on what conditions, given a target of 9 weeks
  of inventory without a fall in in-stock rate below 95%?"

### 3.2 Charter

| Element | Content |
|---|---|
| Strategic question | [One sentence, as in 3.1] |
| Decision maker | [Name, title] |
| Why now | [Trigger: plan, problem, opportunity] |
| Link to strategy | [Strategy document, objective] |
| In scope | [Units, geographies, processes, period] |
| Out of scope | [What you will not touch, and why] |
| Success criteria | [Measurable outcomes for the company] |
| Academic criteria | [What the school grades] |
| Constraints | [Budget, systems, people, time] |
| Assumptions | [What you take as given] |
| Effort | [Hours per week x weeks, team members] |

*Example (Northfield, Western region).* In scope: 22 stores, apparel and
footwear categories, replenishment rules, the weekly ordering process,
from week 1 to week 16 of the project. Out of scope: distribution centre
operations, supplier lead-time negotiations and pricing. Effort: 10
hours a week for 16 weeks, 160 hours for the participant, plus about 40
hours from two analysts.

### 3.3 Value at stake *(Example)*

Size the prize early, at order-of-magnitude level, so the sponsor knows
why the project deserves time. Inventory value is weeks of inventory
times weekly cost of goods sold (COGS); the annual saving is the
inventory released times the carrying-cost rate (capital, storage,
shrinkage and obsolescence).

| Item | Value | Excel |
|---|---|---|
| Annual COGS, Western region | USD 15,600,000 | input |
| Weekly COGS | USD 300,000 | `=15600000/52` |
| Weeks of inventory now / target | 11 / 9 | input |
| Inventory now | USD 3,300,000 | `=11*300000` |
| Inventory at target | USD 2,700,000 | `=9*300000` |
| Inventory released (one-off cash) | USD 600,000 | `=3300000-2700000` |
| Carrying-cost rate | 20% a year | Finance assumption |
| Annual carrying-cost saving | **USD 120,000** | `=600000*0.2` |

| Weeks of inventory reduced | Cash released (USD) | Annual saving at 20% (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 300,000 | 60,000 |
| 2 (target) | 600,000 | 120,000 |
| 3 | 900,000 | 180,000 |

This USD 120,000 is the gross saving that the sponsorship case credits
partly to the programme (mba/emba-sponsorship-proposal, assumption A-09).
For the inventory theory behind it, see mba/mba-inventory-card.

## 4. Stakeholder map

<!-- Guidance: Map before you interview. The people with power and high interest decide whether your recommendation is implemented. -->

Freeman (1984) defined stakeholders as any group or individual who can
affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's
objectives. For a project, narrow that to the people who can affect or
are affected by your recommendation. Two classic tools help:

- **Power and interest grid** (Mendelow 1981): place each stakeholder by
  their power over the decision and their interest in it. High power,
  high interest: manage closely. High power, low interest: keep
  satisfied. Low power, high interest: keep informed. Low power, low
  interest: monitor.
- **Salience** (Mitchell, Agle and Wood 1997): power, legitimacy and
  urgency. Stakeholders with all three demand attention first.

| ID | Stakeholder | Role in decision | Power (H/M/L) | Interest (H/M/L) | Current position | What they need | Engagement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STK-01 *(Example)* | VP Supply Chain | Decision maker | H | H | Supportive, wants proof | Business case, risk to in-stock rate | Manage closely: fortnightly 1:1 |
| STK-02 *(Example)* | Regional store managers (22) | Execute ordering | M | H | Sceptical, fear of stock-outs | Simple rules, a fallback, training | Keep informed: pilot workshop, weekly note |
| STK-03 *(Example)* | CFO | Funds system changes | H | M | Neutral | Cash release, cost of change | Keep satisfied: two briefings |
| STK-04 *(Example)* | IT planning systems lead | Builds the model in the system | M | M | Capacity constrained | Clear requirements, timing | Monthly check-in |
| STK-05 *(Example)* | Faculty adviser | Grades academic quality | H (for the grade) | M | Supportive | Rigour, frameworks, reflection | Milestone meetings |
| STK-06 | [Stakeholder] | [Role] | [H/M/L] | [H/M/L] | [Position] | [Needs] | [Plan] |

```mermaid
quadrantChart
    title Stakeholder power and interest, Northfield example
    x-axis Low interest --> High interest
    y-axis Low power --> High power
    quadrant-1 Manage closely
    quadrant-2 Keep satisfied
    quadrant-3 Monitor
    quadrant-4 Keep informed
    VP Supply Chain: [0.85, 0.9]
    CFO: [0.35, 0.85]
    Store managers: [0.85, 0.45]
    IT lead: [0.45, 0.45]
```

## 5. Analysis plan

<!-- Guidance: Start from hypotheses, not from data. Each hypothesis needs a test you could fail. -->

### 5.1 Issue tree and hypotheses

Break the strategic question into sub-questions that are mutually
exclusive and together exhaustive, then state a hypothesis for each that
your analysis can support or reject. Hypothesis-driven work keeps a
part-time project focused: you collect only the data that can change the
answer.

| ID | Sub-question | Hypothesis | Test that could reject it | Data | Method or framework | Owner | Due |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H-01 *(Example)* | Is excess inventory driven by ordering rules? | Manual orders overshoot demand by more than 15% on average | Compare 52 weeks of orders with sales by store and category | ERP orders, POS sales | Variance analysis, regression (mba/mba-regression-for-managers-card) | Participant | Week 5 |
| H-02 *(Example)* | Can a model hold in-stock at 95% with 9 weeks of cover? | A reorder-point rule with safety stock meets 95% in simulation | Back-test on last year's demand | POS sales, lead times | Inventory model (mba/mba-inventory-card) | Analyst 1 | Week 8 |
| H-03 *(Example)* | Will store managers adopt it? | Adoption is above 80% if overrides are allowed with a reason | Pilot in 4 stores for 6 weeks | Override log, interviews | Change management (mba/mba-change-management-card) | Participant | Week 13 |
| H-04 *(Example)* | Is it worth the cost? | Annual saving exceeds the one-off cost within two years | Business case | Finance data | NPV (mba/mba-npv-irr-card) | Participant | Week 14 |
| H-05 | [Sub-question] | [Hypothesis] | [Test] | [Data] | [Method] | [Owner] | [Week] |

### 5.2 Frameworks: use them to think, not to decorate

Choose frameworks that answer a sub-question. External analysis (Porter's
five forces, mba/mba-five-forces-card) fits a market-entry question;
internal analysis (value chain, mba/mba-value-chain-card; resources and
capabilities, mba/mba-resource-based-view-card) fits a question about
where the company creates value; operations and change frameworks fit an
implementation question like the example. Graders reward a framework
that is applied with data and changes the conclusion. They penalise a
framework drawn for its own sake.

### 5.3 Data request

| ID | Data | System and owner | Period | Granularity | Personal data? | Approval needed | Received |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DAT-01 *(Example)* | Store orders | ERP, Planning | Last 52 weeks | Store x SKU x week | No | Sponsor | YYYY-MM-DD |
| DAT-02 *(Example)* | Sales | POS, Finance | Last 52 weeks | Store x SKU x week | No | Sponsor | YYYY-MM-DD |
| DAT-03 *(Example)* | Interview notes with store managers | Participant | Weeks 3 to 6 | Per interview | Yes (names, opinions) | Data protection contact | YYYY-MM-DD |
| DAT-04 | [Data] | [System, owner] | [Period] | [Grain] | [Yes / No] | [Approver] | YYYY-MM-DD |

## 6. Deliverables

<!-- Guidance: List company and academic deliverables separately. They often differ in content, length and audience. -->

| ID | Deliverable | Audience | Format | Due | Acceptance criteria |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEL-01 | Project proposal | Sponsor, adviser | This document, sections 1 to 8 | YYYY-MM-DD | Both approve |
| DEL-02 | Interim review | Adviser, steering committee | 10 slides | YYYY-MM-DD | Hypotheses tested, plan for the rest |
| DEL-03 | Recommendation and business case | Steering committee | Board-style memo, 5 pages | YYYY-MM-DD | Decision taken |
| DEL-04 | Implementation plan | VP Supply Chain, stores | Plan with owners and milestones | YYYY-MM-DD | Owners accept |
| DEL-05 | Academic report | School | [Word limit] report with appendices | YYYY-MM-DD | Programme rubric (section 9) |
| DEL-06 | Final presentation | School panel, sponsor | [Minutes] | YYYY-MM-DD | Programme rubric |
| DEL-07 | Personal reflection | Adviser | [Words] | YYYY-MM-DD | Programme rubric |

The company version and the academic version can share most of the
analysis. The company version leads with the decision and the numbers;
the academic version also shows the reasoning, the alternatives you
rejected, the limits of your evidence and what you learned.

## 7. Governance

<!-- Guidance: A part-time project without governance drifts. Set the cadence and the decision rights in week 1. -->

### 7.1 Roles and RACI

R = responsible, A = accountable, C = consulted, I = informed.

| Activity | Participant | Sponsor | Faculty adviser | Steering committee | Analysts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scope and charter | R | A | C | I | I |
| Data access and confidentiality | R | A | C | I | I |
| Analysis | A | I | C | I | R |
| Recommendation | R | A | C | C | C |
| Implementation decision | C | R | I | A | I |
| Academic report | A, R | C | C | I | I |

### 7.2 Cadence

| Forum | Members | Frequency | Purpose |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sponsor 1:1 | Participant, sponsor | Fortnightly, 30 minutes | Progress, obstacles, decisions needed |
| Steering committee | Sponsor, CFO delegate, IT lead, participant | Weeks 4, 10 and 15 | Approve scope, review findings, decide |
| Adviser meeting | Participant, faculty adviser | At each school milestone | Academic quality |
| Working session | Participant, analysts | Weekly | Analysis |

### 7.3 Risk and decision logs

| ID | Risk | Likelihood | Impact | Mitigation | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSK-01 *(Example)* | Data extraction delayed by IT capacity | M | H | Agree extract in week 1; use exported reports as fallback | Participant |
| RSK-02 *(Example)* | Sponsor changes role | L | H | Name a deputy sponsor in the charter | Sponsor |
| RSK-03 *(Example)* | Day job peak in weeks 10 to 12 | H | M | Front-load analysis; agree reduced scope option | Participant |
| RSK-04 | [Risk] | [L/M/H] | [L/M/H] | [Mitigation] | [Owner] |

| ID | Date | Decision | Made by | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEC-01 *(Example)* | YYYY-MM-DD | Pilot limited to 4 stores | Steering committee | Contain stock-out risk |
| DEC-02 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Decision] | [Who] | [Why] |

## 8. Confidentiality and data protection

<!-- Guidance: Agree this in writing before any data moves. Your school, graders and classmates are third parties to your employer. -->

The academic report will be read by people outside your company:
faculty, sometimes external examiners, and possibly classmates in a
presentation. Plan for that from the start rather than redacting at the
end.

1. **Agreement.** Find out what the school offers: many programmes have a
   standard confidentiality agreement for company projects, restricted
   circulation of reports, or the option not to deposit the report in a
   library. Your employer may require its own non-disclosure agreement.
   Record what applies and who signed it.
2. **Data classification.** Classify each data item with your company's
   scheme before it leaves company systems; keep restricted data on
   company devices.
3. **Disguise.** Present indexed or scaled figures (for example, sales
   indexed to 100) or disguised names where graders do not need the real
   values, and say in the report that you have done so.
4. **Personal data.** Interviews and employee data may be personal data.
   Where EU or UK data protection law applies, the General Data
   Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679, and the UK version)
   sets duties on purpose, minimisation and security; other countries
   have their own laws. Ask your company's data protection contact
   before collecting, and anonymise quotes.
5. **Trade secrets.** Information with commercial value that the company
   keeps secret may be protected as a trade secret (in the EU, Directive
   (EU) 2016/943). Treat pricing, cost, supplier and customer data as
   restricted unless the sponsor clears it.
6. **Generative AI tools.** Do not paste company data into an AI tool
   that your employer has not approved, and follow your programme's
   academic integrity and AI policy for the report itself; disclose AI
   use where the programme asks.
7. **Publication and reuse.** Agree in advance whether you may describe
   the project in a CV, an interview or an article, and in what level of
   detail.

| ID | Item | Classification | Shared with school as | Approved by | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNF-01 *(Example)* | Store sales and orders | Confidential | Indexed, region disguised | Sponsor | YYYY-MM-DD |
| CNF-02 *(Example)* | Interview notes | Personal data | Anonymised quotes only | Data protection contact | YYYY-MM-DD |
| CNF-03 | [Item] | [Class] | [Form] | [Approver] | YYYY-MM-DD |

This section is a checklist for planning, not legal advice. The company's
legal or data protection team decides what may be shared.

## 9. Assessment and reflection

<!-- Guidance: Replace this rubric with your programme's own if it has one. Use the reflection prompts from week 1, not only at the end. -->

A typical academic rubric for an in-company project weighs these
criteria; use your programme's own weights.

| Criterion | What strong work shows | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Problem definition | A decision-focused question, clear scope, link to strategy | [ %] |
| Use of theory | Frameworks chosen for the question and applied with data | [ %] |
| Analysis and evidence | Hypotheses tested, sound data, limits acknowledged | [ %] |
| Recommendation | Options compared on stated criteria, risks and implementation | [ %] |
| Impact | Decision taken or a credible path to one, measured results | [ %] |
| Communication | Report and presentation clear, executive-ready | [ %] |
| Reflection | Honest learning about leading change in your own organisation | [ %] |

Reflection prompts, drawing on the reflective-practice tradition
(Schön 1983):

1. What did I assume about my organisation at the start that turned out
   to be wrong?
2. Where did my position in the hierarchy help or hinder the analysis?
3. Which stakeholder conversation changed my recommendation, and why?
4. What would I do differently if I led this project again?
5. Which course concepts did I actually use, and which did not survive
   contact with reality?

## 10. Timeline

<!-- Guidance: Align the school milestones with the company calendar (budget cycle, peak season). Put both on one table. -->

| Week | Company milestone | School milestone | Deliverable |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Sponsor agreed, confidentiality signed | Proposal submitted | DEL-01 |
| 1 to 3 | Data extracted; stakeholder interviews | Adviser kick-off | Interview notes |
| 4 | Steering committee 1: scope confirmed | | Charter v1.0 |
| 5 to 9 | Analysis H-01 and H-02 | | Working files |
| 10 | Steering committee 2: findings | Interim review | DEL-02 |
| 11 to 13 | Pilot in 4 stores (H-03) | | Pilot results |
| 14 | Business case (H-04) | | DEL-03 draft |
| 15 | Steering committee 3: decision | | DEL-03, DEL-04 |
| 16 | Handover | Final report and presentation | DEL-05, DEL-06, DEL-07 |

Week 0 is [YYYY-MM-DD].

## 11. Quality checklist

<!-- Guidance: Run at the proposal stage and again before the final submission. -->

- [ ] The question names a decision, a decision maker, a criterion and a
      time frame.
- [ ] Sponsor and faculty adviser have approved scope in writing.
- [ ] Confidentiality and data protection are agreed before data moves.
- [ ] Value at stake is sized with traceable numbers and formulas.
- [ ] Every hypothesis has a test that could reject it.
- [ ] Stakeholders with high power and high interest have a named
      engagement plan.
- [ ] Governance cadence and decision rights are set.
- [ ] Company and academic deliverables are both planned.
- [ ] Figures in the academic report are disguised where required, and
      the report says so.
- [ ] Reflection notes are kept throughout, not written at the end.

## 12. Common mistakes

<!-- Guidance: Read before the proposal meeting. -->

1. Choosing a topic instead of a decision.
2. A scope too large for a part-time project of three to six months.
3. No senior sponsor, or a sponsor who is not the decision maker.
4. Collecting data before stating hypotheses.
5. Frameworks drawn for decoration, not used to reach the conclusion.
6. Ignoring the sceptical stakeholders who must implement the result.
7. Moving company data to personal devices or unapproved AI tools.
8. Redacting at the last minute instead of planning disguise from the
   start.
9. Writing one report for two audiences, so it satisfies neither the
   sponsor nor the grader.
10. Treating the project as consulting on someone else's area, without
    reflecting on your own role as a leader inside the organisation.
11. Letting the day job absorb the project weeks with no reduced-scope
    option agreed.

## Sources and further reading

<!-- Guidance: Cite the frameworks you actually use. Your programme handbook is the binding source for rules. -->

- Freeman, R. E. (1984). *Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach*.
  Pitman.
- Mendelow, A. L. (1981). Environmental scanning: the impact of the
  stakeholder concept. *ICIS 1981 Proceedings*, 20.
  [aisel.aisnet.org](https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis1981/20).
- Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. and Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of
  stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who
  and what really counts. *Academy of Management Review*, 22(4),
  853-886.
- Schön, D. A. (1983). *The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals
  Think in Action*. Basic Books.
- Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: why transformation efforts fail.
  *Harvard Business Review*, 73(2), 59-67.
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation) and
  Directive (EU) 2016/943 (trade secrets), on
  [EUR-Lex](https://eur-lex.europa.eu/); check the consolidated text.
- Further reading on structured problem solving: Minto, B., *The Pyramid
  Principle* (Pearson, any recent edition).
- Your programme handbook for the project course.

## Revision history

<!-- Guidance: New version at each approval and after each steering committee. -->

| Version | Date | Author | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | YYYY-MM-DD | [Participant name] | Proposal draft |
| [1.0] | YYYY-MM-DD | [Participant name] | [Approved by sponsor and adviser] |

## Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with common practice for in-company and action-learning
projects in executive education, stakeholder theory (Freeman 1984;
Mendelow 1981; Mitchell, Agle and Wood 1997) and project governance
practice. The text, worksheets and example are original; Northfield
Outdoor Co. and the people named are fictional. No school is affiliated
with this template; follow your programme's handbook and check the
current official text of any law named. Template licence: MIT.