If a program/project is subject to both an IRA and Gateway, both processes would be integrated to minimise the potential for review burden. E.g., the IRA may replace the review stages of the Gateway process. Interaction with ICT Investment Approval Process and Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process The Assurance Reviews Framework is designed to complement the ICT Investment Approval Process and the Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process. If a program/project is subject to both Gateway and the ICT Investment Approval Process or the Two Stage Capital Works Approval Process, the requirement to conduct Gateway Gate 0 and Gate 1 reviews is not mandatory. Gateway would only commence after the approval process has been concluded or if the entity opted to participate in reviews during the approval process. Risk management Better practice demonstrates that the identification and treatment of risk is undertaken at the earliest opportunity during policy design. This is an important element of the control framework necessary for effective program/project implementation. Risks are things that may happen at some point in the future and have the potential to negatively impact on the policy and the realisation of objectives. It is essential that risks are identified and actively managed in order to reduce their likelihood of happening or their impact on the policy or program/project. By identifying key factors that affect policy performance and considering how they may evolve in the future, policies can be made more robust to a range of anticipated conditions and indicators developed to identify when policy adjustments are required. NCEs are responsible for assessing the inherent risk factors associated with their New Policy Proposals (NPP). The Risk Potential Assessment Tool (RPAT) is a standardised risk analysis tool designed to assist NCEs with this process. The resultant risk rating can inform whether additional assurance processes is recommended to government. In making this determination, Finance will consult with relevant stakeholders including the relevant entity and other central entities. Decisions to commission Assurance Reviews are made by government, usually during the pre-budget considerations of NPPs and Portfolio Budget Submissions. In exceptional circumstances, the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister and the Treasurer, can make the decision to commission an Assurance Review. NCEs are encouraged to consider the scheduling of their cabinet submission timetable to allow for potential pre-decision Assurance Reviews.
Blended Gateway reviews Programs do not always fit into the Gateway structure for projects (Gate 0 to 5) because they can represent a series of interrelated projects with a common objective, or a broad framework or policy concept that may result in a series of largely independent smaller projects (potentially all at different stages of implementation). The ‘blended’ review approach helps to reduce the review burden on entities while simultaneously providing program strategic alignment and project milestone delivery assurance. Identifying the critical factors in a multi-project program, including the issues that need to be addressed to realise benefits, is an important component of the blended review approach. Program reviews will assess the significance of any project to the overall success of the program, and where the single project could benefit from a focussed review, the overall program review will accommodate a combined focus of program and project review. E.g., blend Gate 1 with a First Stage Review or blend Gate 4 with a Mid Stage Review. Combined Gateway reviews Combined Gateway reviews (i.e. combined Gate 0 and 1) may be conducted when a project has reached the point in its lifecycle where the issues relevant to the subsequent Gateway milestone are pertinent at that point in time. Phased Gateway reviews Phased Gateway reviews can be conducted, e.g. a Gate 2a followed by a Gate 2b, the entity, ARU and/or the RTL considers that this approach would add value and be appropriate for the project. A phased approach would work well, e.g., where there are discrete phase ‘releases’ that would benefit from targeted assurance. This is often the case for large ICT projects and projects applying an Agile methodology. A phased approach may also be applied where the SRO requires independent assurance before committing to a course of action prior to the timing of the next scheduled review. Intermediate assessments A significant lag can sometimes occur between Gateway reviews. This is most obvious in complex ICT and construction projects – during the critical ‘build’ stages of implementation (between Gate 3 and Gate 4). Intermediate assessments are based on the principles existing in the Gate 0 – Business need review, and provide entities with interim assurance focussed on strategic alignment, the strength of the business case, and effort to optimise benefits to government. Additionally, intermediate assessments can assist to highlight key risks and reconfirm stakeholder commitment.
interests clearly understood? Confirmation that that the decision-making process includes all the relevant stakeholders and is both efficient and effective. Analysis of potential conflicts between stakeholder groups and contingency plan for dealing with such conflicts. Results of consultations documented as part of the communications strategy. 3.2 Do stakeholders support the preferred option? (This includes the potential or recommended delivery approach and mechanisms.) Documentation supporting the consultation, involvement, support and endorsement of stakeholders. 3.3 Are stakeholder issues being addressed? These include: • communications • public relations • environmental issues • personnel • statutory processes A communication plan for dealing with various stakeholders showing responsibilities. Plans for dealing with statutory consultation requirements. Flexibility and ability to react to changes in stakeholder interests and concerns. Governance arrangements clearly articulate opportunities for stakeholder concerns to be aired and addressed. 4. Risk management Areas to probe Evidence expected 4.1 Are there processes in place to identify, assess and monitor current, anticipated and emerging risks? A list of and key issues, categorised as strategic, political and/or reputational, legislative, implementation and operational service risks including business, technical, financial and commercial and/or contractual risks. For IT-enabled projects, information security for e-government, risks relating to poor take-up. For construction projects, risks relating to health and safety. For policy projects, regulatory impact assessment carried out. A risk management strategy developed in accordance with best practice. An individual identified as responsible for managing risk across the project, mitigation options and contingency plans. Defined roles, responsibilities and processes for managing issues and risk with clearly defined routes for bringing issues and risks to the attention of senior management. 4.2 Have any issues raised in a previous review been resolved satisfactorily? Updated and risk logs, with details of actions taken. 4.3 Have the risks for each of the options been evaluated? Current, emerging and anticipated risks classified by likelihood, consequence, mitigation strategy and residual risk. 4.4 Have the for the preferred option been fully assessed? Involvement of senior stakeholders in assessing strategic risks. An assessment of risks, costs and benefits to demonstrate the appropriate balance of risk and reward in the preferred option, demonstrating planned risk taking and support for innovation where appropriate. Plans for managing the risks with the preferred option. For IT-enabled projects, information security risks and risks relating to poor take-up considered.
confirmation that the procurement strategy approved at the Gate 2 review has been followed confirmation that the negotiated and agreed solution(s) remain within the original criteria plans and assessments of probity throughout the procurement process adequate plans from the supplier for development and implementation an evaluation report containing recommendation and justification of the selected supplier and plans for debrief of unsuccessful suppliers project plans through to completion and detailed plans for the next stage a project timetable proposed by suppliers as part of their tender an updated communications plan confirmation of adequate financing and budget, and authority to proceed benefits management strategy benefits profiles; and benefits realisation plan. These documents, and any other information the Assurance Review Team deems relevant, will be required prior to the onsite review. Key focus areas for Gate 3 reviews The following topics commonly be considered during a Gate 3 – Investment decision review. Assurance Review Teams are expected to use their own expertise in determining the relevance and appropriateness of these topics for the specific project under review. Assurance Review Teams may determine that additional topics are critical to the assessment of the project. 1. Business case and stakeholders Areas to probe Evidence expected 1.1 Is the project still required? Confirmation that the project aligns with strategic objectives, including government/entity objectives. Confirmation that external factors or findings from the procurement process have not affected current priorities. 1.2 Are the requirements of the business case complete or does the tender decision require the business case to be amended and/or A reassessment of the business case requirements, including strategic, economic, financial, commercial and project management factors. An updated business case if required. 1.3 Does the recommended way forward meet the business need? Key objectives revisited against final tender and proposed solution. 1.4 Has the most appropriate option been selected? A cost-benefit and risk analysis against final bid information and results of evaluation, including sensitivity analysis. The preferred option complies with the requirements/ specifications and evaluation criteria.
Staff managing the contract are aware of and trained for their contract management role; they are familiar with the contract’s aims and purpose. Plans for managing service delivery, changes to the contract, and the relationship with the supplier. 4.4 Is there a process to manage and measure performance? Performance management in place. The performance enhancement process is agreed with the service provider and documented in the contract before awarding of the contract. The means of measuring performance is agreed with the service provider/partner. 4.5 Is there a process to manage measure and report benefits? Benefits management are in place, linked to intended project outcomes, where applicable. Means of measuring benefits are agreed with the service provider/partner. Reporting lines are clear, with stakeholder involvement clarified. For collaborative projects, all parties understand and agree to their responsibilities and arrangements for benefits realisation. 4.6 Have ongoing operation and maintenance been considered in detail? Issues and ongoing costs relating to maintenance (buildings, physical and/or IT infrastructure and applications as appropriate) are addressed and monitored against expectations. 4.7 Is a process for post-implementation reviews? Plans for post-implementation reviews are endorsed by the supplier and internal and external stakeholders. Gate 5 – Benefits realisation review Purpose The Gate 4—Readiness for service review assessed whether the solution was robust before delivery, and that the entity was for the implementation and had a basis for evaluating ongoing performance. A Gate 5—Benefits realisation review is not a post-implementation review. It place after the entity has carried out a post-implementation review or similar major review. It makes use of findings from that internal review, together with an assessment of organisational learning, as evidence of good practice but may or may not include a full review of plans for the future. The Gate 5—Benefits realisation review focuses on ensuring that the project delivered the benefits and value for money identified in the business case and benefits realisation plans. A Gate 5 review is generally held six to twelve months after commissioning of the product(s) or introduction of the service, when evidence of the benefits is available.
2. Review of operating phase Areas to probe Evidence expected 2.1 Is the service/facility operating to defined parameters? Documented operating parameters, updated as change. Updated service level agreements, where applicable. Service delivery is measured against defined parameters. Confirmation that the measures used to address poor or are effective The facility is safe to operate and maintain. Sustainability targets are met or exceeded. Client/stakeholder satisfaction and experiences are assessed. 2.2 Have the project documentation, training material and training program been delivered and kept up to date? New staff trained and existing staff skills updated. Updated training material. Responsibilities for updating training material and documentation defined. The occupational health and safety record updated as required. 2.3 Are the contractual relationships satisfactory? Project records demonstrating effective contract management procedures. Supplier and client who are enthusiastic, mutually respectful and united in their objectives. Improvements to the contract. Regular reviews between supplier and client. Action plans exist. Measurement of contract improvements. Reports on work done and for expected work. 2.4 Are there plans for continued contract management? Ongoing forward resource plans, as required. Succession planning for key Skills appraisal and plans for addressing shortfalls. 2.5 Are plans for ongoing risk management up to date? An updated risk register, risk reporting and management. Business continuity/contingency plans are updated as required. Occupational health and safety aspects considered. 2.6 Have the contract management procedures been successful to date? Contract management reports, which demonstrate successful project implementation. Project documentation recording plans for change management and dispute management. 3. Plans for ongoing improvements in value for money Areas to probe Evidence expected 3.1 What is the scope for improved value for money? Can more be done for less? Could the provider deliver better service quality at the same price? Can maintenance costs be reduced? Analysis of for money to date against scenarios for future service use. Commercial intelligence about the supplier’s track record on other projects and/or comparison with supplier’s offering similar services. Details of efficiency both expected and achieved.
4.4 Do the performance measures selected offer clear and demonstrable evidence of the success (or otherwise) of the contract? Performance measures chosen have the following attributes: Are meaningful and visible to an entity’s management group. Properly reflect user and stakeholder perceptions. Can be used to identify the need for support or remedial action as part of contract management activity. 4.5 Are performance measures related to delivery or capability improvement tracked against an existing baseline? A baseline has been established in the business case for the contract. Performance measures are tracked against that baseline. 4.6 Are there performance assessment measures for: ongoing service delivery the desired results of individual programs of change or improvement, the implementation of projects the overall results or effect of the deal? What does the entity want to have achieved by the end of the contract period? Service level agreement approaches and related measures. Investment appraisal and benefits management techniques are constructed on a case-by-case basis. Objectives are identified during project scoping and in preliminary business analysis activity, rooted in the organisation’s long-term business strategy. For construction projects, confirmation that user satisfaction has been or will be monitored as required. 5. Readiness for the future Areas to probe Evidence expected 5.1 Is there an ongoing need for the service? An updated business case, linked to the current business strategy. 5.2 If the service will be needed in the future, what is its likely The options appraisal to include some or all of the following: ‘Do nothing’. Retain the scope of the existing contract. Split the scope of the existing contract. Broaden the scope of the existing contract. Completely rethink the requirement for the contract. Consider single/multiple sources of supply. Combine new services with similar or complementary services.
5.3 Are any major issues with the current contract that could affect the approach to retendering the service? Factors to consider include: the of services—could the provider cope with the range of services provided or were there significant weaknesses? the flexibility of the contract— how adaptable was the relationship to both foreseen and unexpected changes in the nature and level of demand? clients’ reaction and adjustment to outsourcing—how well did users adapt to services provided by a third party? Was management confident that the provider could be relied on to provide the service? Is the organisation now ready for a greater dependence on outsourcing? an exit strategy—will the retendering be straightforward or is there a danger the client is now ‘locked in’? Have agreements been made to ensure the handover is as smooth as possible? the benefits and costs of delivering the service through alternative delivery models (e.g., using sourcing) An updated risk management plan and issue register/ log. Exception reporting from regular client/ provider progress meetings. Reports from contract and service management functions. An exit strategy and details of handover arrangements. 6. Review of organisational learning and maturity targets to probe Evidence expected 6.1 Does the entity have a well-defined and effective process implemented for identifying lessons learnt from the project, embedding them internally and sharing them across government? A mechanism for capturing and recording the initial data. An internal evaluation of lessons learnt. Mechanisms and policy for making information available within and outside the organisation. A process for providing feedback to entity project teams. Relevant feedback is considered in the context of the business case. Entity staff participation in knowledge-sharing forums. 6.2 Has there been a review of how well the project was managed? Confirmation from a formal review that is conducted at project closure. 6.3 Are suppliers encouraged to learn from experience? Incentives for suppliers to improve project delivery A commitment to long-term relationships with integrated project teams exists.