Guidance on the Assurance Reviews Process (RMG 106)

Critical (Do now)

To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome it is of the greatest importance that the program should take action immediately.

Essential (Do by)

To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome the program should take action in the near future. Whenever possible essential recommendations should be linked to program milestones (e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe i.e. within the next three months).

Recommended

The program should benefit from the uptake of this recommendation. If possible recommendations should be linked to program milestones (e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe i.e. within the next three months).

Gate 0

Business need - assures that the scope and purpose has been adequately assessed, communicated, fits within the entity's overall business strategy and/or whole-of-government strategies and policies and that the expected benefits have been identified and measures have been considered.

Gate 1

Business case - focuses on the robustness of a project's proposed approach to meeting the business requirement and can be delivered within the timeframe and with the resources provided. Assures that a benefits management approach has been applied, improvements are clearly defined and can be quantified.

Gate 2

Delivery strategy – provides assurance that the procurement strategy establishes a clear definition of the project and a plan for its implementation, has made an assessment of the project’s potential for success and benefits agreed upon in previous stages have been aligned to the delivery effort, and if the project is ready to invite proposals or tenders.

Gate 3

Investment decision - provides assurance on the supplier selection that the business needs are likely to be met through the project and contract management controls, and that the processes are in place for contract delivery. Assures that benefits management strategies and plans have been incorporated.

Gate 4

Readiness for service - provides assurance on whether the solution is robust before delivery, assesses organisational readiness before and after delivery, and considers the basis for evaluating ongoing performance and whether benefits are likely to be achieved.

Gate 5

Benefits realisation - focuses on measuring the project’s success to date in achieving its objectives, expectations for the future and building in remedial action to deal with any potential risks.

First stage review

Conducted before or soon after government approval. It assists entities in defining the program by examining the business need and formulation of the business case. Can also be conducted whenever the priority or the scope of the program changes significantly.

Mid stage review

Focus is on assessing the program execution with the number of these reviews being determined by the complexity, timeframe and risks attached to the program.

End stage review

Focus is on program closure, including program controls, records management and the identification and application of lessons learned as well as the delivery of the intended outcomes and benefits.

Green

There are no major outstanding issues in this key focus area that at this stage appear to threaten delivery significantly.

Amber

There are issues in this key focus area that require timely management attention.

Red

There are significant issues in this key focus area that may jeopardise the successful delivery of the project.

Critical (Do now)

To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome, it is of greatest importance that the project take action immediately
 

Essential (Do by)

To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome, it is important that the project take action in the near future. Whenever possible, link essential recommendations to project milestones (e.g. before contract signature and/or a specified timeframe i.e. within the next three months).

Recommended

The project would benefit from the uptake of this recommendation. If possible, link recommendations to project milestones and/or a specified timeframe.

1.1

Is the project innovative in planning to succeed?

• New approaches have been explored and existing systems challenged.
• Confirmation that the project is structured to allow responsiveness and flexibility in achieving outcomes.

1.2

Is there a clear understanding of the required outcomes of the project and are they soundly based?

• A description of the project policy drivers and outcomes and how they contribute to the business strategy and objectives.
• An outline of the required outcomes, benefits derived and their relationship to outputs.
• Confirmation that the way forward is likely to achieve the required outcomes, the expected benefits and the business changes and enablers required for the anticipated benefits.

1.3

Does the project demonstrate a clear link with wider government objectives?

• An analysis which shows the relationship between the project and major government policies and objectives.
• A demonstrated link between strategic objectives and outcomes and the deliverables of the project.

1.4

Is the business strategy to which this project contributes robust?

• A clear direction set out in the business strategy, which is approved by all key stakeholders.

1.5

Does the project, program or policy require new governance arrangements e.g. cross-portfolios

• For cross-portfolios projects, programs or policy, confirmation that all parties involved know how they are engaged in the project and are committed to its delivery.
• Clear governance arrangements to ensure sustainable alignment with the business objectives of all organisations involved.

1.6

Does the project align with government policy and initiatives, the broad environment of the entity and the entity’s strategic objectives?

• Documented links between the proposed project and the entity’s policy, environment and strategy.

1.7

Is the governance framework fit for the purpose?

Is there commitment to key roles and responsibilities for this project?

• Documented commitment from top management and, where appropriate, minister(s) and a clear understanding of their continuing roles in achieving successful outcomes.
• Clear allocation of key roles of responsible minister, SRO, and project managers.
• Confirmation that all parties understand their roles in the project and are committed to the delivery of the project.

• Confirmation that the entity has brought together (or has credible plans for bringing together) the skills and capabilities it needs to plan and achieve the desired outcomes.
• Confirmation that the entity is realistic about the complexity of the project deliverables and how they can be managed.
• Documentation of allocation to individual officials of key roles within the project .

• Confirmation that the entity has processes in place to incorporate lessons learnt from this project, and its components, into wider best practice.
• Confirmation that the entity learns from the experiences of others.

2.1

Is the scope of the project understood?

• A description of the project scope as far as it is known clearly showing what is in scope.

2.2

What is the full extent of the project envisaged and why?

• A description of all project components and outputs, explaining how each will contribute to the required outcomes.

2.3

What will constitute success?

• A definition of key critical success factors and how the required quality of performance will be measured.
• A description of the main outcomes and an analysis of the leading and lagging indicators.
• A relationship between project outcomes and government targets, or major policy initiatives.
• Projected performance over the life of the project, with key performance targets and measures agreed with stakeholders.
• The project can be evaluated in a practical and affordable way.

2.4

Who are the stakeholders and do they support the project?

• A list of principal stakeholders and statements of their needs and support for the project.
• A plan for communicating with and involving stakeholders in appropriate ways.
• Clear lines of accountability for resolving any conflicting stakeholder requirements.
• Recognition of the need to involve external delivery partners, industry and the supplier.

2.5

Is the proposed project affordable?

• An estimate of the project cost, and the basis of costing (e.g., based on previous experience and/or comparison with similar projects).
• An estimate of returns/value of the project versus potential alternatives.
• Sources of funding and amount of project funding currently included in forward estimates (if any).

2.6

What assumptions is the project based on?

What are the major constraints for the project?

• Description of dependencies/other factors already underway that could affect the required outcomes.

2.7

Has the supplier market been considered?

• Engagement with the market to determine capability to meet the need and, where appropriate, to identify suitable delivery options.
• Where suppliers/partners are already in place, confirmation that their ability to deliver has been considered.

2.8

Have project controls been determined, especially where constituent projects will be connected with other entities, jurisdictions or the private sector?

• Overall project controls (progress tracking, issue identification and resolution, impact assessment) defined.
• Interdependencies between project defined, with high-level plans for managing them.
• For collaborative projects, accountabilities for different parties defined and agreed.
• Parties in the delivery chain identified and an approach to them working together has been established.

2.9

What else could affect success?

• The main risks identified at the outset, with nominated risk owners, options for mitigating these risks considered, and the need for contingency plans and business continuity plans.

3.1

Does the project need to comply with broader government or departmental timing requirements?

• Links to government or entity commitments on delivery.

3.2

Is the project on track?

• The project report and plan updated.
• Milestones achieved as planned.
• A plan for benefits measurement has been developed and achievement of benefits is on track.
• The risk register is current.
• Highlight reports created for constituent work-streams.
• Reports on resources and funding used to-date are current.
• Reposts on issues being resolved maintained.
• Confirmation of confidence from delivery partners that future milestones and plans are realistic.
• Interdependencies with other projects are being managed.

3.3

Have options for potential ways forward been identified?

• A listing of high-level options for meeting the business need is maintained.
• Options analysis or feasibility studies, are maintained, if available.

4.1

Have the required outcomes from the project been identified?

• A current list of the main outcomes and desired benefits, linked to strategic outcomes and to the deliverables from specific projects.

4.2

Are the planned outcomes still achievable, or have any changes in scope, relationship or value been properly agreed, and has the business case been reviewed?

Is the project time critical?

• Outcomes identified, together with their relationships to each other.
• Credible plans for the achievement of outcomes.
• Documentation showing ongoing commitment from stakeholders to the outcomes and their achievement.
• Documentation showing ministerial agreement to scope changes.

Are key stakeholders confident outcomes will be achieved when expected?

Is it on track to deliver?

• Confirmation of time-critical issues and a realistic schedule to achieve them.
• Mechanisms for collecting performance data are in place and a plan for evaluating the impact of the project is in operation.
• Confirmation that the project board is confident that planned milestones will result in good quality deliverables that will achieve the necessary outcomes.
• A commitment from key stakeholders that project deliverables will achieve the desired outcomes.

• A benefits management plan and a plan to ensure that outcomes are delivered in terms of performance measures and/or key performance indicators.
• Plans identify appropriate baseline measures against which future performance will be assessed.
• Plans to carry out performance measurement against the defined measures and indicators.
• Where planned outcomes have not been achieved, confirmation that the problems have been identified and plans are in place to resolve them.
• There is clarity on how the objectives from the projects link to the outcomes of the program.

5.1

Have the major risks been identified?

• A current list of the major strategic, political and/or reputation, environmental and legislative risks to the overall project, analysed by likelihood and impact.
• Early warning indicators identified.
• Consideration of the risks of success, e.g. take-up or usage greater than expected and contingencies identified.
• Confirmation of regular review of risks, mitigation options and contingency plans.

5.2

How will risks be managed?

• Confirmation that the risks to the success of the project (e.g. take-up or usage greater or less than expected) have been considered and mitigation strategies and contingencies identified.
• Documentation of regular review of risks, mitigation options and contingency plans.
• Details of the risk allocation (to whom allocated and why) with high-level plans for managing risks.
• Action to manage the risks identified and, where appropriate, action taken.

5.3

Have assurance measures for the project been put in place?

• ‘Critical friends’ to the project (e.g. probity auditors, internal audit, specialists and/or peer reviewers) appointed, with documentation showing that they challenge assumptions, decisions and risks.
• Confirmation that advice from ‘critical friends’ is acted on.
• Gateway reviews, health-checks and/or policy reviews incorporated into plans.

5.4

Is there a contingency plan and business continuity plans?

• Decisions about contingency and necessary business continuity arrangements are made with appropriate plans.
• The project’s effects on public services is analysed and decisions taken about those for which contingency arrangements will be needed.
• Confirmation that milestones relating to contingency measures are in plans and the milestones are being achieved as expected.

5.5

Have lessons from similar projects been considered?

• Details documented of issues identified from previous, or similar projects and their application to the current project.
• Consideration of findings fromP3M3© or within Capability Reviews and Capability Improvement Plans.

6.1

Affordability: Are the funds to reach the next phase of the project available?

• Budget provision for initiating project(s) and preparing the high level business case.
• Agreed costings from Finance to validate estimates, where appropriate.

6.2

Are the required internal/external resources available, suitably skilled, and committed to undertake the work?

• Resources management plan including documentation on resources identified showing, e.g., who needs to be involved, when, and what they must deliver as well as any additional training needs required for their role.
• Allocation of identified individuals who will fill key roles (such as SRO, project steering committee, and project manager).
• Confirmation that these resources will be available when needed throughout the next phase.

6.3

Achievability: Are the plans for the ‘business case’ phase realistic?

• A plan showing deliverables/milestones, activities, timescales, resources, costs and stakeholder involvement.
• Plans for managing the transition to new ways of working/structures/policies, with key barriers identified (such as cultural resistance to change) and the approach to overcoming them agreed.

6.4

Are appropriate management controls in place?

• Defined project management controls and reporting mechanisms.

7.1

Is there a continuing need for the project?

• Project outcomes still aligned to ministers’ and entity’s strategy.
• Confirmation of continuing commitment from stakeholders.
• Demonstrated confidence that the project is organised to deliver the outcomes when needed and the benefits management plan is robust.

7.2

What assumptions have been made about the project?

• A listing of major assumptions made in preparing the project business case, updated to reflect any changes that could affect success.
• Current assessments of the validity of all assumptions.

7.3

How will change be managed?

• Plans for managing the transition to new ways of working/structures/policies, with any key barriers identified (such as cultural resistance to change) and the approach to overcoming them agreed.

7.4

Affordability: Are the funds to reach the next phase available?

• Budget provision for the project.

7.5

Are the required internal/external (individuals and organisations) suitably skilled, available and committed to carrying out the work?

• Information showing who needs to be involved, when and what they must deliver.
• Key roles in place, with skills matched to the nature of the work.
• Confirmation that these resources will be available when needed throughout the next phase.

7.6

Achievability: Are the plans for the next phase realistic?

• A plan developed showing: streams of work (sub-program, projects, etc.), deliverables/milestones and the ‘roadmap’ to achieve them, timescales, organisation, costs and resourcing, stakeholder involvement.

7.7

Are appropriate management controls in place?

• Accountabilities allocated to SROs.
• Program management controls and reporting mechanisms defined.
• Plans for ongoing management of the delivery chain.

1.1

Is there a clear and agreed understanding of the business objectives and how they will be delivered?

• Business objectives for the project clearly stated and SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timely).
• A strategy for achieving business objectives defined and agreed with the stakeholders.
• Total scope, including timeframes, documented and agreed with stakeholders (including end users or their representatives) and technical authorities.
• Delivery approach and mechanisms defined and agreed with stakeholders.
• For IT-related projects: IT developments defined as component(s) of wider program of business change.
• Documentation showing options reviewed and a case for their selection.

1.2

Is the impetus for change described in the business case?

• Comprehensive justification of any changes to existing arrangements, including input from stakeholders.
• References to related project approvals, where appropriate.

1.3

Are all relevant government initiatives being addressed?

• Documented links to relevant government strategies and policies.

1.4

Is the business case sufficiently linked to the entity outcomes and project with the investment objectives?

• Confirmation that the investment fits within the organisational objectives of the entity.
• How the business case contributes to the entity outcomes and project objectives and how the investment affects the efficiency and/or effectiveness of project delivery.

1.5

Have internal and external factors affecting the project been identified and assessed?

• Assessment of the objectives, timeframes and scale of the project.
• Legislative, policy and regulatory issues taken into account.
• Assessment of the stability of the current business environment and strategic direction.
• Assessment of internal and external dependencies (e.g. other program and projects) that could affect current priorities or the project.
• Assessments of the impact on existing physical and technical environment (e.g. brownfield site, current infrastructure and legacy systems).
• Identification of key external (non-government) dependencies, if any, likely to impact on the project.

1.6

What factors are critical to ensure success?

• The critical success factors for each of the main objectives are documented.

1.7

Can the critical success factors be quantified or measured?

• Explanation of how the factors will be measured.
• Identification of what constitutes success.

1.8

For IT projects, will the business case make a significant contribution to entity IT objectives?

• Appropriate documentation and consideration of the flow-on effects from IT investment, especially where it represents a significant change in the entity’s IT direction.
• Documented links to the entity’s IT strategy.

1.9

Has the business case examined a wide range of options that will meet the business need?

• Options explored for collaboration with other government entities and projects.
• Range of options considered includes maintaining the status quo.
• Rigorous assessment of the pros and cons of each option to determine its potential to meet the critical success factors.
• Thorough assessment of options for the procurement process.
• Market research indicating that suitable solutions can be provided.

1.10

Is there a clear ‘best option’, or would several options meet the business need?

• Options appraised in accordance with principles which are relevant and appropriate for responding to the business need.
• Examination, and ranking, of all options that are acceptable in principle.
• Clear analysis of whole-of-life costs for each option.
• Use of software metrics to test robustness of costs for IT projects.

1.11

If there are several options, how was their robustness tested?

• Sensitivity analysis of all appropriate options.
• Major sensitivities included in the list of identified risks.
• Cost-benefit analysis performed accurately and consistently across all options.
• Economic analysis is supported by clear and unambiguous assumptions.

1.12

Is the argument for the ‘preferred option’ sound?

• Documentary evidence that the preferred option has been selected from an appropriately wide range, rigorously assessed and satisfies the project objectives (including contribution to the business strategy), is likely to offer value for money, and is affordable and achievable.
• Confirmation that appropriate sources of expert advice have been consulted.
• Confirmation that it is possible to align the contracting strategy with the entity’s overall objectives.

1.13

Does the preferred option meet wider government and entity objectives, standards and business change program?

• Assessment against a list of wider government and entity objectives, policies, business change program and standards.
• Assessment of the business need justification as stated in the high-level business case.
• For construction projects, compliance with the Australian Government Implementation Guidelines for the National Code of Practice for the Construction Industry, occupational health and safety standards, and sustainability initiatives.

1.14

Does the business case demonstrate that the opportunities for sharing services across entities have been investigated?

• Options to share services considered and if rejected, justification for rejecting the option.

1.15

Has contract management been considered?

• Requirements for the contract management capability have been considered.
• Arrangements for managing single/multiple suppliers have been considered.
• Where multiple suppliers are likely to be appointed, high-level plans for managing the liaison.
• The appropriate relationship has been determined, with the optimum scale of contract(s) appropriately considered.

1.16

Were the feasibility study and business case completed within time and cost budgets?

• Project budget and timetable reports.

1.17

Have assumptions been identified and their validity checked?

• Assumptions identified and accepted.
• Plans to verify the assumptions, if any, that are included in plans for the next stage.

1.18

Has Finance agreed the costings for the project?

• Documentation of consultation with Finance on costings and sign-off, where relevant.

2.1

Has the project governance been considered and is there an overall project management process?

• Decisions made on reporting/authority boundaries, composition of the project team, and external resources/people needed, if any (e.g. expert advisers).
• Clear articulation of the roles and responsibilities of key players in the project.
• Agreed project management process and project organisational structure, including a design methodology where appropriate.
• Senior management’s commitment to the project and their key role in decision-making.

2.2

Has a steering committee, or equivalent, been established to oversee the project?

• Clear articulation of the role and decision-making power of the steering committee.
• Details of the process for providing information to the steering committee and frequency of meetings.
• Details of the type of information to be provided to the steering committee, such as budget reports, risk management reports and action items.

3.1

Have all the likely stakeholders been identified and are their interests clearly understood?

• Internal and external stakeholders identified and documented.
• Stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities defined and agreed.
• End-users for the project identified and documented.
• 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.

4.1

Are there processes in place to identify, assess and monitor current, anticipated and emerging risks?

• A list of risks 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 risks; 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 issue 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 risks 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.
• For construction projects, risks relating to occupational health and safety considered.
• For Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects, compliance with the qualitative and quantitative methodologies set out in National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/ppp_policy_gui….

4.5

Have the ‘worst case’ costs associated with risks been assessed?

• Complete cost assessments of the risks documented.
• Contingency funding based on assessment of financial implications of risks.

4.6

Are risk management costs and time implications included in the cost and time estimate or are they treated as a contingency?

• Costs and time for managing risks separately identified.
• Where risks cannot be reduced, the costs of managing these risks separately identified and included within the base estimate, or as contingency funding.
• For construction projects, decisions on how residual risks are being insured.
• For PPP projects, compliance with the methodology set out in National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/ppp_policy_gui….

4.7

Does the project break new ground?

• Examination of leading-edge projects to assess the project’s effect on the business, stakeholders and end-users.
• Information from similar projects or activities from which lessons may be learnt.
• Innovative solutions assessed by experts.
• Consultation with the market to help refine the approach, and identify risks and ways in which risks might be mitigated.
• For PPP projects, evaluation of project consistent with methodology in National Public Private Partnership Policy and Guidelines http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/public_private/ppp_policy_gui….

4.8

Would it be better to break the project down into a series of small steps?

• Documentation of the chosen approach and justification for taking that decision.
• The business case details any phased delivery or expected improvements over time.

5.1

Is there an overall project structure for the delivery stage?

• A definition of the procurement approach to be adopted.
• A draft procurement plan, including details of how proposals will be evaluated.

5.2

Is there a realistic plan to reach the next stage of the project (Gate 2— Delivery strategy)?

• Objectives, planning assumptions, constraints, activities, deliverables and milestones defined and agreed for the next phase as well as for the remaining phases.
• Information demonstrating that the project addresses both short-term and long-term business requirements.
• Information confirming that suitable solutions are available from the market and that it has sufficient capacity.
• Information confirming that the proposed procurement strategy is consistent with the PGPA Act and rules, Accountable Authority’s Instructions (AAIs) and entity Operational Guidelines.

5.3

Have any requirements for external specialist advice been determined?

Are the necessary internal and external skills available at the right time and in the right numbers?

Is there a training need, and if so, what is it?

• Requirements for specialist expertise considered and resourced.
• A resource plan for internal staff, including an assessment of training needs, if any.
• Skills appraisal and plans for addressing shortfalls.
• Training assessment and plans, with training sources identified.
• Information demonstrating that external advice is being used appropriately.

5.4

Is the project timetable realistic?

Does it take into account any statutory lead times and time required for approvals?

• A timetable identifying statutory lead times and a realistic assessment of the time needed for approvals and pre-procurement activities.
• Senior management commitment to the timetable.
• A procurement timetable justified and not longer than necessary.

5.5

Is there a clearly defined project organisation for the next stage of the project, with agreed roles and responsibilities?

• Project organisation and methodology governance/ reporting arrangements.
• Roles and responsibilities of personnel involved, with the project clearly defined and understood.
• For collaborative projects, a single SRO assigned and senior officials from each collaborating entity.
• Individuals named in the following key positions:
  • Project sponsor/SRO.
  • Project manager.
  • Stakeholder manager.
  • User representative.
  • Project steering committee.

5.6

Are the necessary funds to reach Gate 2—Delivery strategy identified?

• Documentation on appropriate budget provision.
• Financial controls for expenditure are documented and in place.

1.1

Strategic fit: Does the business case continue to demonstrate the business need and contribute to the business strategy?

• Continued confirmation that the project will meet business needs (including confirmation that priorities remain unchanged where any external factors might have an effect).

1.2

Options explored: Is the preferred way forward still appropriate?

• Continued confirmation of the way forward, supported by an assessment based on indicative assumptions about factors such as interdependence with other projects, reliance on partners to deliver etc.

1.3

Value for money: Is the proposed commercial arrangement likely to achieve value for money?

• The bases for calculating costs (value of requirements) and comparison of tenders agreed with key stakeholders.
• The business case updated on the basis of the full project definition, market assessment and initial benefits plan.
• The procurement strategy reflected in the business case.
• An assessment of value for money consistent with the procurement plan.
• Examination of the sensitivities and financial implications of handling major risks, and an assessment of their effect on project return.

1.4

Affordability: Are the costs within current budgets?

Is the project’s funding affordable and supported by key stakeholders?

• Reconciliation of projected total project costs with available budget, reviewed and accepted or approved by key stakeholders (e.g., appropriate approval provided in accordance with the PGPA Act and Rules • Project costs are within forecast entity spending plans as agreed by government.

1.5

Achievability: Is the entity still realistic about its ability to achieve a successful outcome?

• Comparison with similar projects (and similar entities), assessment of track record in achieving successful change, plans to manage known weaknesses, plans for incremental/modular approaches where applicable, contingency plans in place.

1.6

Is there a clear definition of the total project scope?

• A document showing the updated total project scope including business change, where applicable (Gate 1—Business case review).

1.7

Are the issues relating to business change understood?

Is there an initial plan to address these issues?

• Change management strategy documented, with key stakeholders’ views, business process implications and communication requirements clearly understood.
• Issues relating to business change logged, with a plan for each.

1.8

Is the entity fully committed to the project?

Do stakeholders support the project?

• Documented involvement of, and endorsement by, the entity itself and all stakeholders.

1.9

Are the benefits to be delivered by the project understood and agreed to with stakeholders?

Is there an initial plan for realising benefits?

• A plan for realising benefits, showing costs offset by improved quality of service.

2.1

Will the project be attractive to the market?

• Detailed market research, including an examination of recent similar procurements by others, or a commentary on the capacity of the market to deliver and the nature of the project’s possible suppliers.
• Initial assessment of possible suppliers.

2.2

Are the business objectives clearly understood by the entity and likely to be understood by suppliers?

• Detailed output/outcome-based specifications, including key success factors to show how the outputs/outcomes will be assessed.

2.3

Are the project outputs/outcomes accurately reflected in the requirement specification?

• Depending on the nature of the procurement, an appropriate specification of requirements that has been reviewed and endorsed by stakeholders.
• An appropriate mechanism to articulate the requirement to potential suppliers, quality assured to ensure that suppliers will understand what is required.

2.4

Have options for the proposed procurement approach been evaluated, including sources of supply?

• All appropriate sourcing options examined (e.g. single or multiple suppliers, opportunities for collaboration); for infrastructure projects, documentation showing that integrated procurement approaches have been fully evaluated.
• For IT-enabled projects, a sound decision to contract for an output.
• Where a PPP is the proposed option, confirmation that it is appropriate.
• Comparison with similar projects and analysis, supported by commercial intelligence on market capability.
• Reasons for selecting sourcing options justified and documented.

2.5

Is the procurement strategy consistent with the approved business case?

• Documented material showing that the procurement strategy aligns with the business case.

2.6

Is the selected procurement strategy defined and endorsed?

• A clearly defined procurement strategy, showing reasons for selection, and agreement by stakeholders.
• Confirmation that business continuity and a future exit strategy have been considered at a high level.
• Confirmation of development, involvement and endorsement of the procurement strategy by appropriate individuals.
• Strategy to include: sourcing option (e.g. PPP); procurement approach (e.g. open tender); timetable (with milestones) consistent relevant procurement rules, plus time needed for pre-procurement activities, implementation and contingency in the event of unavoidable slippage; assessment of market place/potential suppliers, roles, resources and skills needed to manage the procurement strategy; alignment with plans for implementation.

2.7

Have factors that may affect the procurement strategy been addressed?

• Confirmation that key factors influencing the procurement strategy have been taken into account.
• Confirmation that the efficiency and predictability of the procurement process have been considered, with a process in place for addressing the effect of any deviation from the plan and timetable, plans for two-way communication with stakeholders and suppliers.

2.8

Will the procurement strategy facilitate communication and co-operation between potential suppliers and the client?

• Communication strategy and support mechanisms in place.
• Confirmation that the procurement strategy will include: the early involvement of suppliers to ensure the design is fully informed by the delivery process, and clearly defined performance criteria with key performance indicators and a system for measuring performance.

2.9                        

Has the proposed procurement procedure been evaluated?

• An open, select or direct route is identified.
• Reasons for following the procedure are understood; related risks (such as effect on timescales and tender costs for suppliers) are evaluated, and the decision is justified and documented.

2.10

Is there adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers?

• Confirmation that adequate knowledge of existing and potential suppliers has been considered.
• Confirmation of commercial market intelligence, market sources and potential suppliers.
• Documentation of the consideration of track records from the public and private sectors, showing:
  • The public sector’s ability as a client to work in this way.
  • The private sector’s track record in meeting similar or equivalent business need).
  • Indications of the types of suppliers most likely to succeed in delivering the required outcomes.

2.11

Is the contract management strategy robust?

• Contract management strategy takes account of key factors such as the required skills, proposed relationship, and management of single or multiple suppliers.
• Documentation showing the continuity of key project personnel.

2.12

Has the project team complied with the relevant procurement policies and guidelines in preparation of the tender documents?

• Documentation of the procurement process complying with the PGPA Procurement Rules and the entity’s AAIs.
• Tender documents reviewed, and shown to be complete and containing an accurate description; for construction projects, include requirements for suppliers to provide relevant occupational health and safety information.

2.13

Is the evaluation strategy (including how to demonstrate value for money) accepted by stakeholders and compliant with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules?

• Evaluation criteria and model(s) approved by stakeholders.
• Key evaluation criteria linked to business objectives and given appropriate weighting.
• Separated financial and non-financial aspects of the evaluation.
• Evaluation criteria and weightings included in tender documents.
• For construction projects, adherence to building code, occupational health and safety guidelines, and sustainability requirements.

3.1

Is the project being managed in accordance with its governance framework, stakeholder engagement plan, project plan and other critical documents?

• The project running to schedule and costs within budget, as shown in project budget and timetable reports.
• A governance framework in place and the project is managed accordingly.

3.2

What caused any variations such as over-runs or under-runs?

• Reconciliations made against the budget and timeframe, according to risk allowances.
• Reconciliations supported by variance reports which explain the reasons for, and actions taken in response to, variances.

3.3

What actions are necessary to prevent variations recurring in other phases?

• Project management documentation, showing current analysis and plans which are continually reviewed and updated.

3.4

Were there any assumptions made at Gate 1, or earlier reviews that have not been verified?

• A log of outstanding assumptions, with plans to verify them (categorised and managed as issues where applicable).

4.1

Are the major risks identified, understood, financially evaluated and considered in determining the procurement strategy?

• A log of major issues and risks.
• Interdependencies with other projects and programs identified.
• For construction projects, occupational health and safety risks identified.
• For IT-related projects, risks relating to IT innovation, infrastructure, security and take-up identified.
• Each risk assessed financially and included in business case as a sensitivity or contingency.
• An escalation process is in place for upward referral of risks.
• A log of issues and risks regularly reviewed by project team; evidence of appropriate action taken.

4.2

Are there risk management plans in place?

• Risk management plans for each risk, with responsibilities for managing them clearly identified and allocated; plans are approved by stakeholders.
• A process for the ongoing identification, allocation and management of risks, approved by stakeholders, where appropriate.
• A risk reporting process in place for upward referral of risks.
• A contingency plan, if required.

4.3

Have all issues raised in previous review(s), and during the course of the project, been satisfactorily resolved?

• The risk management plan and issues register/log is regularly reviewed by the project team; with evidence of appropriate action taken.

Are the following external issues being addressed:

• statutory processes
• communications
• public relations
• environmental issues?

• A list of external issues and related stakeholders.
• An external relations plan developed and implemented as part of communications plan/ strategy.

5.1

Is the project plan for the remaining phases realistic?

• A project plan detailing clear objectives, deliverables, resourcing and milestones for the remaining phases.

5.2

Are the project’s timelines reasonable and compliant with relevant procurement policies and guidelines?

• Timelines likely to meet business and legislative needs.
• Documentation showing that timelines have been verified with suppliers.
• Comparisons with similar projects.
• Relevant procurement policies and guidelines and their effect on timelines taken into account.
• An analysis of the effects of slippage that could affect the project or its suppliers, with a supporting sensitivity analysis.

5.3

What are the arrangements for the next stage of the project?

Have its activities been defined and resourced?

• A plan showing the roles, responsibilities, training requirements, internal and external resources, skills requirements and any project management mentoring resources available.
• Involvement and perspectives considered from business, user and technical stakeholders.
• Appropriate plan for the selected procurement approach, identifying all key review and decision points, and preliminary reviews, if any.

5.4

Does the project have resources with the appropriate skills and experience where required?

• A commitment to provide the required internal and external resources.
• Job descriptions for key project staff.
• A skills audit and plans for addressing, shortfalls if any.
• Project relationships such as teamwork and partnering considered, with a plan to implement them where appropriate.

1.1

Is the project still required?

• Confirmation that the project still 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 re-assessed?

• 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 meets evaluation criteria.

1.5

Does the commercial arrangement represent value for money, with an appropriate level of quality over the whole life of the project?

• Market assessment, other entity benchmarks and previous experience.
• Results of evaluation, demonstrating how value for money is achieved.
• An assessment of the supplier’s funding arrangements, if appropriate.
• For PPP projects, PPP guidelines.

1.6

Is the entity realistic about its ability to manage the change?

• A documented understanding of cultural implications, where appropriate.
• Comparison with other similar projects.

1.7

Does the business case still demonstrate affordability when incorporating the proposal?

• An updated business case incorporating the following bid information.
• Changes to established budget.
• Returns and value recalculated with a new benefits plan.
• Costs compared with budget and pre-tender estimates.

1.8

Is there an agreed plan for the realisation of anticipated benefits?

• A benefits management strategy and plans.
• Critical success factors.
• A list of the individuals responsible for delivering and achieving benefits identified.
• The agreed process for measuring benefit.
• A post-implementation review plan identifying areas to be assessed.
• Payment mechanisms linked to benefits realisation, where appropriate.

1.9

Have suitable stakeholders been involved and, if so, what has been their involvement?

• Involvement of stakeholders and business or user representatives in the quality and proposal reviews.
• Stakeholder representation on the evaluation team.
• Approval by the project steering committee and SRO.

2.1

Does the proposed solution still meet the business needs and government and entity objectives?

• The recommended bid fully complies with all requirements.
• Documented consultation with stakeholders during evaluation.

2.2

Have the suppliers proposed any alternatives or other options in addition to a fully compliant bid?

• An assessment of options showing how they are beneficial to the project’s outputs/outcomes and are still within the scope of the tender documents.

2.3

Will the proposed bid deliver the business need described in the business case?

• Analysis showing the proposal is defined in terms of the required outcomes.
• Confirmation that the business can achieve the necessary organisational and business process changes.
• Confirmation that the proposed services and service levels as defined in the contract will meet the agreed business requirements.

2.4

Has the proposed solution affected the strategy for business change?

• An updated plan for managing the business change on the basis of the proposed solution, which is agreed by project steering committee, and SRO.
• Analysis of differences from the original plan.

2.5

Has the proposed solution affected the expectations of business benefits?

• An updated plan for benefits realisation and benefits profiles.
• Analysis of differences to the original position.
• Changes documented and agreed with users and stakeholders.

2.6

Are the entity and supplier prepared for the development (where there are new systems and processes), implementation, transition and operation of any new services?

• The proposed supplier’s development and implementation plans are included in the bid and presented to the appropriate entity endorsement and governance bodies/committees.
• The entity’s implementation plan is agreed by users and other internal/external stakeholders.

2.7

Are there plans and processes to address future issues, both business and technical?

• A strategy for managing change is agreed by all parties, including the supplier.

2.8

Is there clear allocation and understanding of responsibilities between all parties, in addition to any contractual obligations?

• Responsibilities defined and allocated among the entity officials, the supplier organisation and personnel.
• For cross-portfolio projects, a Memorandum of Understanding (or equivalent), defining responsibilities, relationships and interaction between entities.
• Documentation identifying internal relationships and interactions (describing ‘who does what’) with the supplier.
• A statement from the supplier outlining reciprocal arrangements, including senior management roles.
• If a single supplier, a description of how the project management team will manage the supply chain.
• If multiple suppliers, details of how the entity will manage the interaction.
• Documentation confirming that the entity and supply team will work together as an integrated project team.
• A documented exit strategy exists.

2.9

Are resources available for the supplier to fulfil its obligations within the contract?

• A plan for implementing the new contract, identifying the quantity, type and quality of resources required.
• Formal management acceptance of resource requirements.

2.10

Have the technical implications been assessed?

• Documentation demonstrating that the proposal is technically acceptable and has considered relevant implications such as sustainability and legacy systems etc.

2.11

Does the project have resources with the appropriate skills and experience to achieve the intended outcomes of the investment?

• Plans for building client capability, with nominated staff allocated to the major roles.
• Confirmation of internal and external commitment to provide the resources required.
• Job descriptions for key project staff.
• A skills appraisal undertaken, with plans for addressing shortfalls, if any.

2.12

Is the proposed procurement within financial approvals and is there adequate budget to accommodate the procurement?

• Documentation confirming that required financial approvals exist.
• Documentation detailing the required budget and timing of milestone payments, referring to the relevant budget measure(s).

3.1

Is the project under control? (i.e. running to plan and budget)

• Confirmation that project is running to schedule and costs are within budget.
• Confirmation that project governance entities/structures are fulfilling their roles and actively oversighting the project.

3.2

What caused any variations?

• Reconciliations against budget and timetable criteria.
• Advice provided to the project steering committee or SRO, where appropriate.

3.3

What actions are necessary to prevent variations recurring in other phases?

• Analysis and plans are included in project documentation and documentation is continually reviewed and updated.

3.4

Have all the assumptions from Gate 0, 1 and 2 reviews been validated?

• Validation of project assumptions, with assumptions that cannot be validated being stated in the risk management plan/issue register, assessed and discussed with potential suppliers.

3.5

Have all the required entity procurement and technical checks been undertaken?

• Review of tender management and approval processes.
• Confirmation of compliance with the AAIs, procurement policies and operational guidelines.
• Confirmation that the evaluation strategy, underpinning models and criteria has been followed.
• Demonstration of compliance with statutory requirements (e.g. planning and building regulations).

3.6

Did the project team follow the planned steps in the procurement strategy?

• Documentation confirming that the activities and processes in the procurement strategy and plan have been followed.

3.7

Has the procurement process adequately managed probity?

• Confirmation of compliance with an entity probity management plan or probity processes.
• Sign-off by a probity auditor (where appropriate).

4.1

Are risk and issue management plans up to date?

Are they being monitored?

• The risk management plan and the issue register/log are regularly reviewed, updated and actioned.

4.2

Have all major risks that arose during this stage been resolved?

• The updated risk management plan and risk register contains appropriate methods for dealing with risks.
• All risk issues assigned and dealt with by specified team members.

4.3

Are there arrangements to minimise risks to the business in the event of major problems during implementation and rollout?

• A documented business continuity and contingency approach, agreed with stakeholders and suppliers.
• Business or entity continuity and contingency plans.
• An assessment of the supplier’s continuity and contingency plans.

5.1

Is the working relationship likely to succeed?

• A realistic assessment of management style/ behaviours of entity and supplier.
• Reporting arrangements identified at appropriate levels of entity and supplier.
• Plans for integrating the project team, where appropriate.

5.2

Are all resources and internal funds in place?

• Budget provision (including provision for future years).
• The provision of human resources is agreed.
• An authorisation/approval process for payments to suppliers.
• A process for expenditure reporting and reconciliation.

5.3

Are the supplier’s project, risk and management plans adequate and realistic?

• Confirmation that the supplier’s project plan meets timeframes for achieving the outcome of the investment.
• Confirmation that the supplier has adequate insurance arrangements.
• Confirmation that the supplier has realistic implementation and risk management plans.

• The updated project management plan reflects tender proposals.
• Personnel and responsibilities have been defined and organised for the entity.
• Supplier’s personnel have been vetted to meet project requirements.
• A process exists for resolving issues, and is agreed with supplier.
• Confirmation that all plans have been reviewed, agreed and included in the contract.

• A long-term plan with a contract management strategy and a detailed service delivery plan exists.
• Key performance measures agreed with supplier.
• An analysis of the project plan showing that resource requirements are identified, planned, budgeted and available when required.
• Required resources and sourcing identified.
• Roles and responsibilities have been defined.

• A documented service management strategy and plan for the entity.
• Defined and agreed service level management, service levels, service quality and measurement between the entity and supplier is confirmed.
• Responsibilities for each party agreed.
• Defined and agreed standards for services exist.
• Defined and agreed monitoring, reporting and review mechanism exists.

• Change control procedures (both technical and business) defined, agreed and included in the contract.
• Management process and responsibilities are defined and agreed.

• An acceptance/commissioning strategy and plan exist with fully documented and timetabled decision paths.
• Decision-makers are clearly identified and informed about their role in acceptance.
• The acceptance criteria are agreed with supplier.
• A validated acceptance testing plan, including technical and business components exists.

• An implementation strategy and plan exist.
• Users, stakeholders and the entity’s business management team are involved in developing the strategy.
• Where applicable, plans for transition to new ways of working exist.

1.1

Is the project still required?

• Approval of changes to requirement defined at Gate 3 Review (Investment Decision), which remain within the scope of the original tender specifications.
• Reconfirmation with stakeholders.
• Project steering committee endorsement of:
  • Updated business case and benefits plans.
  • Reviews with evidence of the solution against the requirement.
  • Where appropriate, a review of the supplier’s IT solution for its effect on the business change project.
  • Reconciliation of current government and entity objectives with those defined at Gate 3 Review (Investment Decision); and plans for modular/incremental implementation, where required.

1.2

Does the project still meet the business needs and objectives of the relevant users and stakeholders (i.e. government departments, interest groups etc.)?

• Confirmation that the operational service or facility is approved by stakeholders.

1.3

Is the business case still valid?

• An updated project plan and business case justifying implementation that the deliverable(s) are:
  • Likely to meet the business need.
  • Likely to deliver value for money.
  • Affordable.
  • Achievable, with implementation broken down into modules/increments where appropriate.

1.4

Are there any changes between contract execution and completion of transition/testing stages that affect the business change project?

• Change management documentation exists for:
  • The impact analysis.
  • Products, design or operational changes.
  • Justified and approved changes.
  • An updated business case and benefit plan for the business change.
  • Updated processes, procedures and activities.

1.5

Is the entity ready for business change?

• Agreed plans exist for business preparation, transition and operational phases. and, where appropriate, for information and communications technology.
• Communications plan exists.
• Informed and trained staff are available to undertake the business change activities.

1.6

Can the organisation implement the new services whilst maintaining existing services?

• A resource plan, exists showing that the entity can demonstrate capacity and capability and that resources are available to meet commitments.

1.7

Are there appropriately skilled and experienced staff available?

• Confirmation that there is internal and external commitment to provide the staff required.
• Job descriptions exist for key project staff.
• Skills appraisal and plans exist for addressing any staffing shortfalls.

2.1

Do the products and/or services delivered meet the acceptance criteria?

• Justification and authorisation of any changes to original specification (Gate 3 Review).
• Analysis of products and/or services to show how the solution complies with acceptance criteria.

2.2

Is the project under control (i.e. running to plan and budget)?

• Reconciliations of cost with budget and actual with planned schedule.
• Updated risk and issue logs, apart from commissioning issues.
• Status reports for communication and external relations activities.
• Reports on environmental performance, where applicable.
• Compliance with statutory requirements (e.g. occupational health and safety, data protection).
• Confirmation that contractual issues are resolved and recorded.

2.3

Have all the stakeholder issues been addressed?

• Progress reports completed detailing resolution of issues, and circulated as part of the communication plan for stakeholder information.

2.4

Are all testing and commissioning/ acceptance (or transition) procedures complete?

• Commissioning/testing team with relevant skills and experience.
• Commissioning/testing plans, results and analyses of products and/or services against acceptance criteria.
• Ratified test reports and logs.
• Confirmed ‘end-to-end’ testing, including changed or new business processes.
• Testing documentation exists, taking into account future modules or deliveries.
• Where there are missing or incomplete items; agreed corrective action is documented.
• For IT-enabled projects, information assurance tests exist.

2.5

Have all parties accepted the commissioning/test results and any required action plans?

• Documented acceptance of plans, procedures and results by supplier and entity.

2.6

Are there workable and tested contingency and back-out plans for roll-out, implementation and operation?

• A fully documented approach with timetables, for key aspects and events, e.g., IT components and decisions about roll-out.
• Decision-makers to be informed and clearly identified in the documentation.
• Roles and responsibilities listed; resources allocated and staff trained.
• Commissioning/testing documented and showing they represented the expected scenario(s).
• Plans for the transition to new ways of working, where applicable.
• Plans for handover to facilities management, where applicable.
• Training plans and relevant supporting material exist, if required.

2.7

Have the supplier and all internal and external parties agreed on the implementation plans? These could include:

• management of change

• migration and data transfer

• client and supplier implementation

• roll-out

• post-implementation review.

• All required plans in the contract have been agreed.
• All parties, or their representatives, are aware of their responsibilities and have agreed to them.

2.8

Have any changes to the contract been previously forecast, accurately recorded and approved?

• The contract documentation shows appropriate authority for all changes since the awarding of the contract, including rationale for the change.

2.9

Is there a training plan and curriculum?

• Training plans and relevant supporting material exist.

3.1

Have the risks and issues that arose in the awarding of the contract award and implementation phase been properly managed?

• Confirmation that risks are resolved—no outstanding issues.
• Any remaining risks are associated only with commissioning and service delivery - these risks are to be fully quantified, and dealt with by applying suitable risk management plans. 

3.2

If there are unresolved issues, what are the risks of implementing rather than delaying?

• An assessment of all remaining issues and risks, with responsibility for management of residual risks clearly defined.
• An evaluation report on the risk and effect of cancelling, delaying or proceeding with implementation that considers:
  • The project outcome and wider program of change;
  • Benefits realisation.
  • The consequences for supplier, client, business, stakeholders, users etc.
  • Options and management plans for all scenarios, and a recommendation based on the sensitivity analysis.
  • Appropriate process followed, through project governance mechanisms, for any recommendation to delay or proceed with implementation.

4.1

Are all project elements ready for service?

• Updated schedules.
• Occupational health and safety file.
• Handover certificates.
• Testing and commissioning data.
• Plans for transition in place.
• Plans for ‘operate contract’/service phase available.
• Business continuity and contingency plans in place, if required.
• Technical documentation available, including:
  • Drawing.
  • Operating manuals.
  • Maintenance manuals.
  • Instructions.
  • Information assurance documentation.

4.2

Is the entity ready to adopt new ways of working, where applicable?

• New business processes have been thoroughly worked out, tested and are ready to be implemented.
• Information and support is available (e.g. client information at call centres).
• Where applicable, members of the public/end-users are aware of the new service and can obtain further information.

4.3

Is the long-term contract management process in place?

• Detailed and aligned plans, roles, responsibilities and organisation in place for client and supplier, with reporting arrangements at appropriate levels.
• An appropriate number of suitably qualified staff are appointed by client and supplier, with continuity planned, skills appraised and plans made for addressing shortfalls, if any.
• 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 plans 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 plans 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 there a process for post-implementation reviews?

• Plans for post-implementation reviews are endorsed by the supplier and internal and external stakeholders.

1.1

Is the business case still valid?

• Confirmation that the business case still fits with the strategic objectives priorities of the entity:
  • The business case is still achievable and affordable.
  • There is ongoing stakeholder commitment.

1.2

Have the business benefits been realised as set out in the business case?

Did the entity achieve other benefits?

• Findings from the post-implementation review, or the post-project review or equivalent major review, including:
  • The project’s success criteria were met.
  • Project performance criteria and key performance indicators met or exceeded.
  • Total project value targets achieved.
  • Contribution to program/project benefits (as appropriate) and strategic outcomes tracked.
  • Updated business and benefits realisation plans are compared to the Gate 3— Investment Decision Review and the Gate 4—Readiness for Service Review.
  • Assessment of benefits in current operating regime using the benefits measurement basis defined in the Gate 4 Review.
  • Anticipated future benefits identified.

1.3

Have the needs of the business and/ or end-users changed?

• A comparison of current business and end-user needs with those identified in the Gate 3 and Gate 4 Reviews.
• Periodic reviews of business and end-user needs and a projection of future changes.

1.4

Have all the governance and stakeholder issues been addressed? These include:

• the statutory process
• communications
• external relations
• environmental issues
• personnel.

• Updated operational communications strategy, communications plan and issues log.
• Governance structure reciprocated in both client and provider organisation.
• Issues addressed at the appropriate level in client and provider organisations.
• Staff empowerment to make decisions and stakeholder involvement.

1.5

Are the users satisfied with the operational service?

• Details of user groups, outputs and the feedback process.
• Indication of advance preparation for changes in way services are delivered.
• User-friendly guide to the services provided.

2.1

Is the service/facility operating to defined parameters?

• Documented operating parameters, updated as needs change.
• Updated service level agreements, where applicable.
• Service delivery is measured against defined parameters.
• Confirmation that the measures used to address poor or non-performance 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 staff 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 plans for expected work.

2.4

Are there plans for continued contract management?

• Ongoing forward resource plans, as required.
• Succession planning for key roles.
• 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.

3.1

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 value 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 gains, both expected and achieved.

3.2

Has the entity benchmarked its contract-related processes by comparing them with other equivalent organisations involved in similar relationships?

• Benchmarking assessments of processes such as:
  • Demand management.
  • Service planning and development.
  • Service quality.
  • Investment decisions/project justification.
  • Benefits management.

3.3

Are commercial mechanisms providing appropriate incentives?

• Payments to the provider are dependent on benefits derived from implementing a particular program of change.
• The provider has incentives to deliver and to ensure that individual investments are well planned, achievable and will deliver value.
• A clear business case with robust benefits identified on each occasion.
• Target incentive mechanisms, where work is task-based.
• The provider is given incentives to submit optimum resource estimates for a task, with equitable sharing of risks and benefits, between the entity and supplier, in exceeding or undercutting those original estimates.

4.1

Is the entity setting realistic targets for continuous improvement year-on-year from this service?

• Understanding and use of key techniques such as Balanced Scorecard, ongoing stakeholder analysis, benchmarking etc.

4.2

Is the entity tracking its progression to improved performance and the flow of results through key milestones and the business planning cycle?

• Documented performance information which is clearly linked to planned outcomes and enables ready assessment of effectiveness, efficiency and service quality.
• Core sets of performance information that meet multiple purposes, are consistent and complementary.
• Ongoing assessment of the appropriateness of performance information.
• Responsibilities for performance management are defined and understood by the entity and supplier.
• Direct links exist between planning and results.
• Ongoing monitoring of performance and periodic evaluation.
• Integration with corporate and business planning.
• Consistency with the principles set out in the operational strategies of the business.

4.3

Does the entity have performance measures to cover all aspects of the contract?

• Performance measures exist in relation to:
  • Cost and value obtained.
  • Performance and client satisfaction.
  • Delivery improvement and added value.
  • Delivery capability.
  • Benefits realised.
  • Relationship strength and responsiveness.

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.

5.1

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 scope?

• 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 there any major issues with the current contract that could affect the approach to retendering the service? Factors to consider include:

• the range 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 in-house 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.

6.1

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 exist.
• A commitment to long-term relationships with integrated project teams exists.

How to use this section for:

First stage program review

When this review is conducted very early in the program lifecycle, information may be uncertain as options are being explored. Plans for achieving outcomes are likely to be unclear; however, there needs to be evidence of high-level plans for the way forward or a set of options for consideration, with a preferred option identified and a reasonably clear indication of critical success factors and how they will be measured.

Strategic fit: there must be a demonstrable link to the entity corporate strategy. For instance, why is this program needed?

Governance: the governance framework will be in outline, but a clear owner for the program.

Delivery: capability to deliver will be considered at a high level, ideally supported by estimates based on evidence from similar initiatives.

Lessons learned: mechanisms put in place to learn lessons regardless of the stage in the program lifecycle.

Risks: major risks identified at a high level, even at this early stage, with an indication of how they will be managed, including requirements for contingency plans. Implementation risks that may undermine the timely and effective achievement of intended outcome as is advice on mitigation strategies to reduce these risks.

At program initiation, all areas in this section will need thorough investigation as they provide the foundation for successful delivery.

Mid stage program review

The focus at this stage is whether assumptions or circumstances have changed, e.g. a change in policy direction, continued availability of skilled resources.

End stage program review

The critical area at the final-stage review is to confirm the link to business strategy is still robust and supported by senior management.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

1.1

Is there a clear understanding of the required outcomes and are they soundly based?

• The program is structured to allow responsiveness and flexibility in achieving outcomes.

1.2

Does the program break new policy ground?

• Innovative solutions are assessed by experts.
• There are similar initiatives from which lessons may be learnt.
• Consultation with the market to help refine the approach, identify risks, and ways in which risks might be mitigated.
• For PPP initiatives, evaluation of the program is consistent with methodology.

1.3

Does the program sponsor and governance group agree with the business strategy and is the strategy robust?

• A clear direction set out in the corporate and business plans, government policy documents, e.g. the Administrative Arrangement Orders or entity objectives.

1.4

Does the program demonstrate a clear link with wider government and the NCE’s objectives – does it reflect the current business policy and environment and is it aligned with the business strategy?

• Documents showing the program owners/accountable authority/responsible minister, have agreed the scope of the program and its alignment with policy objectives, entity strategy and/or change priorities, e.g.:
  • NPP / cabinet submission, endorsed by the responsible minister and accountable authority.
  • Business case/s, including ICT Investment Approval/two stage approval business cases.
  • Where there are significant changes in policy priorities, in stakeholders’ views, or the key objectives: details of a reappraisal of the program.

1.5

Is there a continuing need for the program?

• The desired outcomes of the program remain aligned to the entity strategy.
• Continuing commitment from stakeholders demonstrated.
• Confirmation that the program is organised to deliver the outcomes as needed.
• The program brief or program business case has been updated and remains valid.

1.6

Have other delivery options been considered?

• An analysis of delivery options.

1.7

Are there any strategic risks arising from the implementation of this program?

• The main risks identified at the outset with nominated risk owners’, options for mitigating these risks considered, and the need for contingency and business continuity plans recognised.
• Risks identified in the NPP, business case and risk documentation. 

1.8

Does the program involve other entities or portfolios?

• For cross-entity or portfolio policy or programs, confirmation that all parties involved know how they are engaged in the policy or program and are committed to its delivery.
• Clear governance arrangements exist to ensure sustainable alignment with the business objectives of all entities involved, including where relevant the objectives of the appointed lead entity.

1.9

Has the entity managed similar programs?

• The entity has processes in place to incorporate lessons learned from this program and its components into wider best practice.
• The entity has demonstrated that it learns from the experiences of others.

1.10

Are the key program assumptions explicit and are they still valid?

• A list of major assumptions made in preparing the program brief, updated to reflect any changes that could affect success and current assessments of the validity of all assumptions.

1.11

Are the program’s milestones defined by legislation or by government commitment?

• Confirmation that there is an ongoing commitment from stakeholders to the achievement of the outcomes..

How to use this section for:

First stage program review

The level of detail and completeness of the business case will reflect that amount of certainty associated with the program at that point. Initially, the program may tolerate high levels of uncertainty; estimates will be very approximate, with high levels of potential variance. The business case is recommended to be developed in tandem with the program and benefits realisation plans.

There must be a clear understanding of the program outcomes from the early stages, even though the overall scope and the way forward may not be clear. The measures of success will be in the program outline.

Key stakeholders identified and engaged, especially for those programs, which involve several entities.

The components of the program, sub-programs and projects and their resource requirements will not be certain at this stage.

Consider early indicators of the additional factors affecting success, which will vary significantly depending on the program.

Program controls will not have been established in detail.

At program initiation, all areas in this section will require thorough investigation.

Mid stage program review

These reviews provide an opportunity to revisit program assumptions such as stakeholder support, program affordability and the effectiveness of program controls.

It is essential to have effective change control mechanisms in place relating to program scope, interdependencies, master program schedule development and resources (e.g. a change in policy direction, capability and continued availability of skilled resources).

Assumptions will need to be revisited, in particular:

• Whether stakeholders remain supportive.
• Whether the program is still affordable.
• Management of issues relating to additional factors that could affect success.
• The effectiveness of program controls.

End stage program review

The main areas to investigate are continued clarity of understanding about the required program outcomes and support for stakeholders as the program closes. Consider program controls and records management.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

2.1

Is there a robust business case for the program, with links to the individual sub-programs and projects?

Is it up to date?

• A description of the program’s business or policy drivers and objectives and how they contribute to the overall objectives.
• An outline of the required outputs or outcomes and their relationship to each other.
• A definition of the benefit profiles for the program for each of the benefits expected.
• Confirmation that the way forward is likely to achieve the intended outcome.
• A business case with, a rationale and objectives statement, appraisal of options and evaluation plan for the option being pursued, and the key performance indicators – e.g. as stated in the Portfolio Budget Statement.

2.2

Is the scope of the program clear?

Does it overlap or interface with other internal or external policies or programs?

• A description of the program scope to date.
• Details of any overlap or link with existing internal or external programs or policies.

2.3

Have the stakeholders been identified and do they support the program?

• A list of key stakeholders and statements of their needs and support for the program.
• A plan for communicating with and involving stakeholders and securing common understanding and agreement.

2.4

Does the program:

• rely on complex dependency relationships with other projects or entities, or have
• complex cross-entity funding arrangements?

• For cross-entity programs, clear lines of accountability to resolve any conflict with stakeholder requirements.
• Recognition of the need to involve external delivery partners e.g. the not-for-profit sector, industry and suppliers.

2.5

Are key stakeholders confident outcomes will be achieved when expected?

• A confirmation that planned outcomes have been achieved to date.
• Mechanisms for collecting performance data are in place and a plan for evaluating the impact of the program is in operation.
• The entity’s accountable authority, SRO or a steering committee, program coordination group or equivalent (e.g. inter-department committee), is confident that planned milestones will result in good quality deliverables and the desired outcomes.
• Commitment from key stakeholders that program deliverables will achieve the desired outcomes.

2.6

Have the program
sub-components been appropriately identified and structured?

• A description of program strands and/or sub-programs and main projects with an explanation of how each will contribute to the required outcomes.
• Key deliverables and identification of key interdependencies.
• Implementation will be broken up into manageable steps and phased delivery where appropriate and will avoid ‘big bang’ approaches.

2.7

Have program controls been determined, especially where constituent projects will join other entities?

• A definition of overall program controls such as progress tracking, risk management, issue identification and resolution and impact assessment.
• Interdependencies between other programs and projects defined, with high-level plans for managing them.
• For collaborative programs, accountabilities and governance arrangements for different entities defined and agreed.
• Processes to manage and record key program information and decision making.

2.8

Has a delivery strategy been developed?

• An analysis of delivery options.
• The parties in the delivery chain are identified and an approach for working together established.

2.9

Is there a clear understanding of what constitutes success?

• A definition of key critical success factors and how the required quality of performance will be measured.
• A description of main outcomes and an analysis of the leading and lagging indicators.
• The relationship between program outcomes and government objectives.
• Projected performance over the life of the program with key performance targets and measures agreed with stakeholders.
• The program can be evaluated in a practical and affordable way.

2.10

What are the additional factors that could affect success?

Are there risks associated with:

• multiple suppliers or complex/volatile supply or logistical chains
• economic conditions likely to affect options of availability; or
• environmental issues such as volatility and/ or significant external change factors?

• The main risks identified at the outset with nominated risk owners’ options for mitigating these risks considered, and the need for contingency and business continuity plans recognised.
• A description of dependencies and/or other factors and/or programs already under way that could affect the outcomes of the program.
• Engagement with delivery chains, the not-for-profit sector and/or the market to determine capability to meet the need and to identify suitable options for delivery.
• Where suppliers and/or partners are already in place, confirmation that their ability to deliver has been considered.
• The legal framework for the program and its projects exists, is comprehensive and sound.

How to use this section for:

First Stage Program Review

If the first review is very early, the major risks may have just been identified at a high level with an indication of how they will be managed and initial consideration of the requirements for contingency plans.

At program initiation all aspects of risk management must be probed thoroughly.

Mid Stage Program Review

The focus is checking that risk management remains effective and appropriate. Implementation risks inherent in working with other entities, jurisdictions and contracted service providers adequately identified, assessed and treated.

End Stage Program Review

The status of the risk register at program closure will be the principal area to investigate and will consider which risks have now been closed/removed and which will be transferred to the risk register for a new initiative or corporate risk log.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

3.1

Is there a framework for managing issues and risk to this program?

• Defined roles, responsibilities and processes for managing issues and risk across the program, with clearly defined routes for bringing issues and risks to the attention of senior management.

3.2

Have the major risks been identified?

• Current list of major strategic, political and/or reputation and legislative risks to the overall program analysed by likelihood and impact.
• Identified early warning indicators.
• The risks of success (e.g. take-up or greater than expected usage, and impact and capability of market) have been considered and contingencies identified.
• Confirmation that regular reviews of risks, mitigation options and contingency plans are carried out.

3.3

Have assurance measures for the program been put in place?

• Confirmation that the program is subject to the NCE’s assurance framework for its portfolio of programs and projects.
• Program governance arrangements include individuals who can challenge assumptions, decisions and risks and, where necessary, advice acted upon, such as representatives from internal audit, procurement specialists, the central entities, the policy and service delivery entities and peer reviewers, as required.
• Gateway reviews, health checks and/or policy reviews are incorporated into the plans.
• Review recommendations are turned into action plans.
• An audit, arranging for complementary assurance about control and processes from audit functions through the delivery chain, is undertaken.
• Market and/or supply considerations are understood and acted upon.

3.4

Is there a contingency plan and business continuity plans?

• Decisions about contingency and business continuity arrangements made with appropriate plans.
• The program’s effects are analysed and decisions taken about those for which contingency arrangements will be needed.
• Milestones relating to contingency measures are in the plans and the milestones are being achieved as expected.

3.5

Have lessons from similar programs been considered?

• Details of applicable issues identified from previous similar programs are considered in the current program.

How to use this section for:

First Stage Program Review

This section would not normally apply but some of the topics may need to be considered.

Mid Stage Program Review

All areas need to be investigated thoroughly to confirm the program remains on track and issues are being managed effectively.

End Stage Program Review

Confirm the expected outcomes have been achieved against the performance indicators and targets, as set out in the relevant Portfolio Budget Statements, and the Business Plan and that no outstanding issues remain.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

4.1

Are the program’s key milestones compliant with broader government or entity timing requirements?

• Timelines for processes are identified and lead times are factored into the program schedule.

4.2

Is the program on track in relation to planning and/or delivery?

• The program report and plan are updated.
• Milestones are achieved as planned.
• The plan for benefits measurement and achievement is on track.
• The risk register is current.
• There are highlight reports for constituent work streams.
• The resources and funding used to date.
• Issues being resolved.
• Documented confidence from delivery partners that future milestones and plans are realistic.
• Confirmation that interdependencies with other programs are being managed satisfactorily.

4.3

Have problems occurred and if so how have they been resolved?

• Issues and details of action taken are documented.
• Governance framework with escalation routes to senior management, ministers and responsible interdepartmental committees and central entities.
• The program plan is updated to reflect changing issues and risks.
• Recommendations from previous Gateway reviews are addressed.

4.4

Have options for potential ways forward been identified?

• Documentation of various solutions including policy, asset and non-asset options.
• A comparison of retention maintenance and replacement indicative costs.
• Options analysis or feasibility studies.

4.5

Have lessons learned been shared?

• Confirmation of lessons learned and shared across the entity and across programs.

How to use this section for:

First stage program review

If the first review is very early, the key aspects to investigate thoroughly are:

• The main outcomes and benefits identified.
• The relationships between the outcomes.

Plans for achieving the outcomes are likely to be unclear at an early stage. There needs to be evidence of high-level plans for the way forward or a set of options for consideration, with a preferred option identified and a reasonably clear indication of how success will be measured, e.g. a trajectory for take-up of a service.

At program initiation, all areas must be investigated thoroughly to confirm expectations for delivery are realistic and performance can be measured with reasonable accuracy.

Mid stage program review

The Mid-Stage review checks plans to deliver outcomes and ensure benefits remain achievable. It focuses on ensuring that everything is in place to deliver the required outcomes and that information obtained will be acted on to improve the quality of the implementation.

At this stage, a benefits realisation strategy and plan needs to clearly show what will happen, where and when the benefits will occur and who will be responsible for their delivery. It is important to be clear about handover and responsibilities for ongoing operations in the changed state (for instance when the benefits will actually be harvested). Integrating this strategy with the overall Program Master Schedule will help to ensure ownership and ongoing management of benefits is maintained after the program has been closed and/or handed over to its business owner.

End stage program review

The topics in this section would primarily be on benefits realised and lessons learned at program closure.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

5.1

Have the policy/program outcomes been identified?

• A current list of the main outcomes and desired benefits.
• Information on links to strategic outcomes and to deliverables from specific projects.

5.2

Are the planned outcomes achievable, or have any changes in scope, relationship or value been properly agreed?

• The outcomes and their relationship to each other have been identified.
• Credible plans for the achievement of the outcomes.
• Documentation of an ongoing commitment from stakeholders to the outcomes and their achievement.
• Confirmation that the business case has been reviewed and approved.

5.3

Is the program on track to deliver?

• Confirmation that planned outcomes have been achieved to date.
• Mechanisms for collecting performance data are in place and a plan for evaluating the impact of the program is in operation.
• Confirmation that senior management is confident that planned milestones will result in good quality deliverables and the desired outcomes (e.g. senior officials such as the entity’s accountable authority, the SRO, a steering committee, a program coordination committee or an interdepartmental committee.
• Documented commitment from key stakeholders that program deliverables will achieve the desired outcomes.

5.4

Is there a plan for monitoring and achieving the required outcomes?

• A benefits management strategy and a plan to ensure that outcomes are delivered in terms of performance measures and/or key performance indicators.
• Appropriate baseline measures identified to assess future performance.
• Actual performance is to be assessed against the defined measures and indicators.
• Processes are established for identifying and resolving issues and problems which may result in non-achievement of planned outcomes.
• Clear documentation outlining how the objectives from the sub-programs and/or projects link to the outcomes of the program.

5.5

How will change be managed?

• Program management controls and reporting mechanisms are defined and operational (e.g. to the accountable authority, responsible minister, and interdepartmental committees).

5.6

Is a benefits management plan active and are benefits being monitored and reported?

• Benefits management plans are in place and linked to intended outcomes, where applicable.
• Methods of measuring benefits are agreed with service providers and stakeholders.
• Reporting lines are clear, with clear roles and responsibilities assigned.

5.7

Is granting activity part of the program?

Do the grants management processes align with the seven key principles prescribed in the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines?^[7]

• Granting activity operates best under clearly defined and documented operational objectives.
• These objectives are recommended to be concise, unambiguous, realistic, and outcomes orientated.

5.8

Where procurement is part of the program, how is capability and capacity for acquisition to be managed?

• A procurement strategy is in place and its application to the program and its projects is adequately documented.
• A market management plan is in place, demonstrating a good understanding of supply side capability and capacity.

How to use this section for:

First stage program review

If the first review is very early, plans may be in too early a stage of development to provide reliable evidence. Where this is the case, this review would examine planned steps to program initiation; all areas would apply to strategic thinking and scope.

Mid stage program review

All areas probed thoroughly with the focus on ensuring everything is in place to start delivering the required outcomes.

End stage program review

This section would not normally apply at program closure stage but some of these areas may need to be considered.

Areas to probe

Evidence expected

6.1

Are the funds available to undertake the next phase?

• The budget provision for the program is appropriately documented.
• Information is provided, setting out adequate approaches for estimating, monitoring and controlling the expenditure on the program.

6.2

Are the program’s resources, including inter/intra departmental resources, suitably skilled, available and committed to carrying out the work?

• Information showing who needs to be involved, what they must deliver and when it must be delivered.
• Identification of the key specialist and management skills required for the next phase of the program.
• Confirmation of the key roles in place with skills matched to the nature of the work.
• Information on the resources that will be made available in the next phase.

6.3

Are the plans for the next phase realistic and achievable?

• Plans for the next phase would vary depending on the program/project but would generally include the items in the following list.
• Information on streams of work such as sub-programs and projects.
• Deliverables and/or milestones and the route map to achieve them.
• Timescales.
• Organisational and governance structure.
• Communication and stakeholder engagement strategy.
• Information on costs and resources.
• Risk management strategy.
• Benefits management strategy.
• Confirmation that the plans have been tested and found to be robust.

6.4

Are appropriate governance controls and approvals in place?

Has the entity assessed its readiness to proceed to the next stage?

• Identification of accountabilities allocated to the SRO.
• Program management controls and reporting mechanisms are defined and operational (e.g. to the accountable authority, responsible minister, and interdepartmental committees).
• Plans for ongoing management of the delivery chain are in place.

6.5

Is the governance framework fit for purpose for the next stage; and is there commitment to support key roles and responsibilities for this program within current corporate priorities?

• A commitment from the owner and governance group, a willingness to take ownership, and a clear understanding of their roles in achieving successful outcomes.
• Key roles and individuals have been identified and assigned, with responsibility for the transition to new ways of working (e.g. responsible minister, SRO, program director, program manager, business change manager and sub-program and/or project managers).

6.6

Are the required skills and capabilities for this program available, taking account of the entity’s current corporate commitments?

• The entity has brought together, or plans to bring together, the skills and capabilities it needs to plan and achieve the desired outcomes and has access to external sources of expertise.
• The program/project team is realistic about the complexity of the changes and how they can be managed and can demonstrate learning from previous and/or other programs.
• Key roles within the program are identified with named individuals.
• Key individuals have an appropriate track record of successful delivery.
• The program has access to expertise which can benefit those fulfilling the requisite roles.
• There is an appropriate allocation of key program or project roles between internal staff and consultants or contractors.

1.

Policy design

1.1

Has there been a systematic focus on implementation during the policy development stage?

1.2

Is there a clear and concise description of the program/project objectives and how it will work?

1.3

Is this commonly understood between relevant entities?

1.4

Have all delivery challenges been identified and documented?

1.5

Have the critical implementation assumptions been identified?

1.6

Are the assumptions supported by data?

1.7

Have the assumptions been tested?

1.8

Is there a process for monitoring and retesting the assumptions during the design and implementation phases?

1.9

Has a sensitivity analysis been applied to the assumptions and how has this been reflected in program/project design?

1.10

Are arrangements in place to adequately resource implementation planning for the program/project?

1.11

To what extent does the entity consider this is the best way to achieve the policy objectives?

1.12

Has consideration been given to alternative/other options for program/project delivery?

1.13

Have all the options under consideration been adequately tested?

1.14

Is this a demand driven program/project?

1.15

What are the key factors that may influence demand?

1.16

How will funding be impacted by changes in demand?

1.17

How will this emerging cost be managed?

1.18

Is this policy initiative outside the entity’s traditional area of expertise or experience?

1.18.1

If so, how will additional expertise and experience be sourced?

1.19

Has the financial impact of the policy been formally costed?

1.19.1

If so, has the costing been agreed with Finance?

1.20

Is the financial profile appropriate?

1.21

Is there a need for additional capital as well as recurrent costs?

1.22

How have these capital costs been assessed?

1.23

Does the entity have a property management plan in place?

1.24

Are there any gaps in critical information?

2.

Implementation planning

2.1

Is there sufficient time to safely implement the program/project?

2.2

Is there an implementation plan?

2.3

Is there a detailed program/project timeline including critical paths, dependencies and milestones?

2.4

Is implementation of the program/project appropriately phased over the forward years and does it reflect manageable stages?

2.5

How have lessons from similar programs/projects been drawn upon?

2.6

Is there a Program/Project Management Office?

2.7

Does the program/project require a corporate Program/Project Management Office function?

2.8

Are there structured change management strategies in place?

2.9

Do financial reporting arrangements provide effective monitoring and forecasting of expenditure?

2.10

Is there an overall ICT plan?

2.11

Has the ICT plan been subject to external scrutiny?

2.11.1

If so, what feedback has been provided?

2.12

How will the appropriate ICT expertise/resources be marshalled?

2.13

Are the ICT requirements clearly within the entities’ existing competencies?

2.13.1

If not, are they novel or leading edge?

2.14

Are there opportunities to leverage existing or developing ICT capability within the Commonwealth?

2.15

Do implementation plans provide for structured testing of IT systems, and formal acceptance sign-off, prior to system implementation?

2.16

Does the entity have the necessary skills available or can they be sourced?

2.17

Does the entity have the capacity to implement the policy without impacting negatively on existing programs/projects?

2.18

Are there appropriately skilled and experienced financial management personnel available?

2.19

Is delivery of the program/project dependent on another government entity?

2.19.1

If so, how mature are the arrangements for accessing this support?

2.20

Does the service delivery entity have demonstrated capability to deliver?

2.21

Has consideration been given to cross-organisational functions and funding arrangements?

2.22

Is delivery of the program/project reliant on third party suppliers?

2.23

Is the external to government supplier market limited and/or very specialised?

2.24

Has a high-level procurement strategy been developed?

2.25

How does the procurement strategy support value for money?

2.26

Does implementation depend on complex or innovative procurement processes?

3.

Governance arrangements

3.1

Is there an established and documented formal governance structure in place?

3.2

Is the governance plan appropriate for this policy initiative?

3.3

Do governance arrangements for the program/project require a change in corporate governance arrangements?

3.4

Does the size and complexity of the initiative require a formal or separate governance structure? (E.g. steering committee or task force to assist in implementation).

3.5

Do members of the formal or separate governance structure have the required skills and are they at the right level?

3.6

How will the entity’s senior management officials monitor the development and implementation of the initiative?

3.7

Is there a senior official responsible for the delivery of this policy initiative?

3.8

How has senior management commitment for this policy initiative been demonstrated?

3.9

Is there independent input to the governance process?

3.10

Will the governance arrangements be effective in providing leadership and direction for the delivery of the policy initiative?

3.11

Have roles and responsibilities been defined?

3.12

Are financial delegations well understood and appropriate?

3.13

Are there records of key program/project design decisions including the basis for those decisions?

3.14

Are appropriate monitoring and reviewing processes in place?

3.15

Are monitoring arrangements linked to the critical implementation risks?

3.16

Is the policy initiative likely to involve probity issues?

3.17

If so, has a probity plan been prepared?

3.18

How will key probity concerns be managed?

4.

Risk management

4.1

Is there a risk management policy within the entity, including processes for the monitoring, escalation and ownership of risk factors on a day-to-day basis?

4.2

Is there a specific risk management plan for the program/project?

4.3

Is there a common understanding of the risks and who carries the specific risks between the delivery entity, central entities and partner entities?

4.4

Have all the risks been identified?

4.5

Have treatments for these risks been identified?

4.6

Is the risk management plan based on current and appropriate guidelines?

4.7

Are there contingency plans, including an exit strategy, for extreme risk implementation scenarios?

4.8

Is there an effective escalation strategy in place and how will this work in practice?

4.9

Has the accountable authority been briefed on the risks to implementation?

4.9.1

How has this been documented?

4.10

Has the responsible Minister and government been briefed on the risks to implementation?

4.10.1

How has this been documented?

4.11

Are there planned measures in place to deal with fraud and abuse?

5.

Stakeholder management and communications

5.1

Have all the key stakeholders been identified?

5.2

Is there clear responsibility for stakeholder management, and the outcomes required from stakeholder engagement?

5.3

Have stakeholders already been engaged?

5.4

What is the strategy for stakeholder engagement?

5.5

Have senior management provided input into the analysis of key stakeholders?

5.6

How has stakeholder feedback been reflected in program/project design?

5.7

If stakeholder resistance is likely, how will it be managed?

5.8

How will stakeholder expectations be managed?

5.9

How do the key stakeholders interact with governance arrangements?

5.10

Is there a communication plan encompassing both internal and external stakeholders?

5.10.1

Is there an alignment between the communication strategy and stakeholder analysis?

5.11

Are resources targeted to maximise the necessary messages to all stakeholders?

5.12

Is whole-of-government consultation required?

5.13

Are arrangements in place to ensure shared implementation activities are aligned?

6.

Evaluation and performance

6.1

Is there a clear articulation of the expected outcomes and benefits and how these will be realised?

6.2

Have key performance indicators been developed for the program/project?

6.3

How will the key performance indicators be applied in on-going program/project management?

6.4

Will the policy initiative be formally evaluated?

6.5

Is there an evaluation strategy?

6.6

Do arrangements for data collection support effective evaluation?

6.7

How will results of evaluation be used to inform future implementation?