Initiative Funding-Gate Recovery Leader

The mandate

The portfolio chief was dismissed after an external review found that demonstrator work packages had crossed funding gates through partner negotiation rather than comparable evidence. Public-grant milestones, technical learning objectives and industrial partner ambitions no longer align; scarce test rigs and safety engineers are double-booked; and several initiatives have spent beyond authorised learning without a stop recommendation. The consortium requires an executive decision holder before the next government drawdown certification.

The leader must start within three weeks for a nine-month fixed assignment while an international search appoints the permanent portfolio executive. The first six weeks reconstruct commitments and freeze releases lacking valid authority. Months two through six run two complete evidence gates and reassign shared facilities; the final quarter completes the public-funding cycle, resolves contested partner positions and inducts the successor through the next live set of decisions.

Handover is complete when every work package has a signed learning objective, technical evidence threshold, cash and in-kind exposure, facility allocation, release authority and stop condition; two gates have run without retrospective approval; grant evidence reconciles to authorised scope; and the permanent executive receives a feasible eighteen-month test sequence. Suspended packages must have people, rigs, data and partner obligations explicitly released or quarantined rather than merely labelled paused.

The interim may suspend unauthorised spend, direct the portfolio office, reallocate shared test windows within the approved programme, and release milestone funding up to CAD 8 million when evidence is complete. Steering-board approval is required for initiative termination, grant-scope change, partner default action, safety-envelope change or commitments above that threshold. The seat cannot approve certification evidence, direct flight-test safety or amend intellectual-property ownership.

Technology selection beyond existing demonstrators, new grant bidding, long-term industrial strategy and permanent partner-governance design remain outside scope. The interim will identify implications but not become chief engineer, public-funding auditor or alliance negotiator. This boundary protects a recovery mandate focused on credible gates and resource allocation from expanding into ownership of the entire decarbonisation strategy.

Why this seat is open

The prior dismissal occurred against a fixed government evidence date and left partner executives without a neutral portfolio authority. Asking work-package leaders to self-correct would perpetuate the bargaining behaviour under review. The board has therefore delegated temporary release and suspension rights while the permanent search runs and technical-accountability boundaries remain unchanged.

What you will own

• Reconstruct cash, in-kind, grant, technical, facility and partner commitments for every funded demonstrator work package.
• Freeze spending or test access where release evidence, authority, learning objective or public-funding eligibility cannot be demonstrated.
• Decide qualifying milestone releases and shared-facility allocation within the approved programme and CAD 8 million delegation.
• Chair two portfolio gates that record release, conditional hold, suspension, board referral, dissent and resource consequence explicitly.
• Reconcile grant evidence to authorised learning scope without certifying technical findings or substituting for independent programme audit.
• Present termination, partner-default and major scope choices with sunk exposure, retained learning, contractual consequence and alternatives.
• Induct the successor through live dossiers, disputed assumptions, grant clocks, facility constraints and the eighteen-month test sequence.

Candidate qualifications

• Held portfolio funding authority across aerospace, defence or complex industrial demonstrators involving public and partner capital.
• Personally suspended or stopped high-profile technical work after evidence failed to justify the next learning expenditure.
• Understands grant eligibility, in-kind contribution, shared test facilities, certification boundaries and alliance obligations together.
• Can compare demonstrator learning value without claiming technical authority over propulsion, airframe or flight-test disciplines.
• Recovered retrospective or negotiated gates into prospective decisions with traceable release evidence and consequences.
• Has completed a permanent handover while public-funding milestones and contested industrial relationships remained active.

Non-negotiables

• Available in Montreal within three weeks and able to complete four international partner-facility reviews.
• Brings direct gated demonstrator-funding authority; grant administration or technology diligence alone is insufficient.
• Accepts no flight-safety, certification, intellectual-property, new-grant or technical-selection authority.
• Will disclose aerospace, public-funding, university, supplier and consortium interests before portfolio access.

1. 49 words maximum. Describe a demonstrator release you refused because additional spend would not buy decision-relevant learning.
2. 49 words maximum. Confirm your Montreal start date and any aerospace partner or public-funding conflict.
3. 49 words maximum. How did you release shared technical capacity after a politically protected initiative was suspended?