For an at-a-glance look at what Gateway entails and the different types of Gateway review, please refer to the Gateway to Success – Manager’s Checklist.
Prepare for a Gateway review
To prepare for a Gateway review, please refer to the Gateway Process Guide and the appropriate Gateway workbook, which will outline specific criteria to be assessed and the types of documentation required.
Gateway reviews are structured around decision points, to support decision-makers at each investment stage gate.
Gate 0: Strategic Assessment
This review is for investments in early stages of development. It investigates the direction and planned outcomes, together with the progress of constituent projects, and provides assurance on how well the investment is set up for success. It is repeated over the life of a programme to ensure strategic alignment.
Gate 1: Business Justification and Options – Indicative Business Case
This review comes soon before the draft Indicative Business Case is complete. It focuses on the rationale for investment and options analysis.
Gate 2: Delivery Strategy – Detailed Business Case
This review comes soon before the draft Detailed Business Case is complete. It focuses on the confirmed preferred option and delivery strategy, including the proposed procurement approach.
Gate 3: Investment Decision
This review focuses on the Implementation Business Case. The review takes place before the agency seeks approval to sign the contract with the supplier and commence delivery.
Gate 4: Readiness for Service
This review focuses on the readiness of the organisation to go ‘live’ with the necessary business changes and the arrangements for management of the operational services and ongoing management of benefits.
Gate 5: Operational and Benefits Realisation Review
Cabinet expects that the report will be published to a wider audience on the Public Sector Intranet (PSI).
An Operational and Benefits Realisation Review focuses on contract management, operational performance, asset management and delivery of benefits after a project’s transition into service. It confirms that business changes are operating smoothly and that the desired benefits of the project are being achieved.
Independent review of business cases
Business cases for all high-risk investment proposals will undergo a quality review as part of Gateway reviews (Gates 0 – 4). Medium-risk investment proposals that opt in for Gateway review will also include a business case quality review.
The purpose of the business case quality review is to provide Ministers and Cabinet with independent assurance on the quality of business cases and therefore greater confidence in decision-making for high-risk investments.
The business case assessment framework is focused on the quality of business case process and rigour of analysis. The assessment examines the process defined for use by the proposal alongside the rigour of application of the process. This approach is intended to provide confidence to decision makers on the approach and application.
This guidance document sets out the process and the assessment criteria for an independent review of business cases as part of Gateway assurance review. It should be read by Gateway reviewers, Senior Responsible Owners at agencies and those responsible for preparing for Gateway reviews or writing business cases for Cabinet approval as required under the Cabinet Circular CO (23) 9.
The quality review of business case will occur as part of the existing Gateway Review practices. There will be no additional review or cost to agencies.
The quality review of business cases contributes to the broader investment assurance activities and does not replace other assurance reviews such as independent peer review or Independent Quality Assurance.
Targeted investment reviews
Treasury also offers Targeted Investment Reviews (TIRs) which follow the principles of a Gateway review.
A TIR is a customised review that can be used at any time, for example for deeper analysis of specific concerns. A TIR may be initiated by an agency, a system lead or a Minister. When initiated by a system lead or a Minister the TIR is mandatory.
A TIR differs from a standard Gateway review in that:
- it has bespoke terms of reference developed jointly between the Gateway Unit, the SRO and the review initiator.
- it is scalable in terms of duration and team size
- its timing does not need to be linked to a project milestone
- reviewers may include specialists from the system leads
Like Gateway, there is a minimum eight week lead time from assessment meeting to review and there is a cost to the project for the review. The cost is based on team size, review duration and the Treasury costs.
A TIR is not a replacement for a Gateway review. However they can be recommended by Gateways as a follow up review.
For more information about TIRs email us at [email protected].
Review reports
At the conclusion of a review the SRO will be provided with a Review Report summarising the key findings and recommendations. For TIRs the review initiator will also receive the report.
The outcome of the review will be shared with the Ministers, Cabinet, the Treasury and system leaders as part of investment approvals.
The Gateway Unit will also use the report for the identification of key themes, quality assurance and system capability building.
The report will contain:
- a summary of findings, including an overall delivery confidence rating
- key recommendations, categorised by urgency
- suggested timing of the next review.
Delivery confidence rating
The overall review RAG (Red/Amber/Green) status in a review report is based on an assessment of delivery confidence. Under this model the review team provides a statement on their view of the project of programme’s ability to deliver outcomes and benefits against its agreed objectives, and considers whether the initiative will deliver to time, cost, scope and quality.
| Rating | Description |
|---|---|
Green 
| Successful delivery to time, cost and quality appears highly likely and there are no major outstanding issues that at this stage appear to threaten delivery significantly. |
Amber-Green 
| Successful delivery appears probable however constant attention will be needed to ensure risks do not materialise into major issues threatening delivery. |
Amber 
| Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and if addressed promptly, should not impact delivery or benefits realisation. |
Amber-Red 
| Successful delivery is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Prompt action is needed to address these, and establish whether resolution is feasible. |
Red 
| Successful delivery appears to be unachievable. There are major issues, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project/programme may need re-baselining and/or its overall viability re-assessed. |
Escalation and enhanced notification process
Gateway reviews do not stop programmes or projects. However, if an investment has significant issues and returns an Amber-Red or Red delivery confidence rating in their review report, an escalation process is triggered.
This process is designed to act as a support tool to help identify ways to resolve issues and to determine if the project or programme can get back on track. It is also designed to provide Ministers and Cabinet with greater confidence that risks and issues are being escalated and managed in a timely and consistent manner and enable them to make further investment decisions where required.
It is usual that following an escalation process that a follow up Assurance of Action Plan review will take place to assess if actions taken to respond to the recommendations are addressing the issues identified.
Agency use of Gateway collateral
The documents below are the core guidance for Gateway reviewers. Agencies are free to use this guidance to assist in developing internal project reviews.
Please note that the Treasury holds the trademark for the Gateway™ process in New Zealand, licensed from the UK IPA. Gateway is solely a Treasury product in New Zealand.
- Any reviews devised by another agency based on this material must not be called Gateway reviews.
- Other agency reviews do not meet the Cabinet requirement for high-risk projects and programmes to undertake Gateway reviews, as mandated in CO (23) 9.