The Scottish Government

How does it start?

There are two main ways in which the potential need for a Gateway Review of a project or programme is identified:

• the CoE-PPM will agree, with the senior management of a particular sector a potential list of programmes and projects that should then be assessed on a case by case basis whether they are suitable for the application of a Gateway Review; or,
• a SRO can also put their programme or project forward for assessment by contacting the CoE-PPM direct.

The Gateway Process involves the following steps:

• Programme / Project Risk and Complexity Assessment;
• The Assessment Meeting;
• Planning the Review;
• Undertaking the Review;
• Reporting; and
• Feedback.

Programme / Project Risk and Complexity Assessment

When a new programme or project is identified the first step for the SRO is to review their programme or project against a Gateway Risk Assessment Form (RAF). The RAF provides a standard set of criteria against which the SRO can assess the degree of risk associated with their programme or project.

The outcome of the RAF indicates whether the programme or project is Low, Medium or High Risk. If the project is High Risk (or deemed Mission Critical) and has a budget of £5 million or over the CoE-PPM must be contacted in order to consider whether a Gateway Review should be arranged. The RAF only provides a guideline; where a programme or project is on the boundary between Medium and High Risk or may be particularly critical or sensitive, the SRO and CoE-PPM may agree a different risk rating.

Note that the online Risk Assessment Form is accessible to SCOTS (SG Intranet) users only - an alternative Word document template version is also available for use and can be provided by contacting the SG Centre of Expertise.

The Assessment Meeting

Following the receipt and analysis of the RAF, the CoE-PPM will then arrange an Assessment Meeting with the SRO and relevant members of their team. The Assessment Meeting allows the CoE-PPM and the SRO to:

• review and agree the risk level associated with the programme or project;
• determine what stage the programme or project is at;
• assess which (if any) review would be most appropriate;
• establish whether the programme or project is ready for review;
• identify the required skill-set and experience for the Gateway Review Team
• identify provisional dates for the Planning Meeting and the Review; and
• consider other potential support options if review is not suitable.

If a full OGC Gateway Review is not considered appropriate due to issues on timing or risk and complexity, the CoE-PPM may suggest a Healthcheck Review is conducted instead.

A Gateway Review can usually be arranged within (8-10 weeks) of the Assessment Meeting. The CoE-PPM need this time to put together options for the Review Team membership, agree the membership with the SRO, and then determine mutually convenient dates for the Planning Meeting and the Review itself. Once determined the CoE-PPM sends out calendar requests and Gateway administration support documentation.

Prior to the Planning Meeting the CoE-PPM provide the Review Team with the note of the Assessment Meeting (if not already done so as part of the Review Team recruitment process) and any relevant background information about the programme/project, e.g. a web link to a project website or other background paper.

The Planning Meeting

The Planning Meeting is normally held no less than 2 weeks before the Review. This meeting is facilitated by a representative from the CoE-PPM and can take up to 3 hours in duration. The Planning Meeting provides the opportunity for the review team to acquaint themselves with each other and the project, finalise the list of stakeholders they wish to meet, identify their documentation requirements and confirm the review logistics.

The first part of the meeting (normally lasting 45 minutes), which only the CoE-PPM and the Review Team attend, is often the first time the Review Team members will have met each other if it is a new Review. This part of the meeting allows the Review Team members to agree a Code of Conduct of how they will approach the Review, agree an appropriate working pattern for the Review days and discuss any initial issues emerging from pre-reading.

The Review Team are then joined by the Programme/Project Team for the rest of the meeting. The remainder of the Planning Meeting will normally include:

• the Review Team Leader presenting the Code of Conduct for agreement;
• the Review Team Leader or CoE-PPM representative providing an overview of the Gateway Review process (if necessary) ;
• the Programme/Project Team providing the Review Team with a briefing of the programme/project's background and its current position and main issues;
• the aims and purpose of the proposed Gateway are reviewed and the appropriate Gateway (i.e. 0, 1-5) is confirmed;
• identification of key stakeholders, from both within and out-with the programme or project structure, who the Review Team would wish to interview;
• identification of key project documentation which the Review Team would wish to read before the Review; and,
• confirmation of any necessary administrative and logistical issues concerning Review location, hotel accommodation, catering requirements and equipment (e.g. projector/conference phones).

Following the Planning Meeting the RTL assumes responsibility for the remainder of the Gateway Review administrative process in liaison with the programme/project team, e.g. confirming the interview schedule, although any major issues should be raised with the CoE-PPM as necessary. The CoE-PPM will make final checks before the Review with the RTL and Programme/Project Team to ensure documents are received and no issues remain.

Undertaking the Review

The Gateway Review usually follows within 2-3 weeks of the Planning Meeting and is normally carried out over 3 days (4 days may be allocated for very major or critical programmes or projects). For a 3 day Review the first two days of the review are usually taken up with interviews and gathering evidence and the third day for drafting the report.

The Review Team begin by reviewing the key project documentation and preparing for the interviews with the key stakeholders (and relevant Programme or Project Team members). The SRO and the Programme or Project Manager (PM) are usually the first to be interviewed. The Review Team compare their findings with best practice and experience of other programmes or projects to create a short report that offers recommendations to the SRO designed to increase the programme or project's opportunities for success.

The Review Team will discuss 'Emerging Findings' at the end of each review day with the SRO (and, other key members of their team if they so wish). It is essential that an open and honest agenda and dialogue is maintained throughout the Gateway Review process. 'Emerging Findings' meetings are intended to enable the Review Team to share their early thoughts on the way the review is progressing and offers the SRO the opportunity to correct any misinterpretations or 'off track' thinking and to ensure there are no surprises within the Review Team's draft Gateway Report.

A Gateway Review can only be a snap-shot of the programme or project as it is at the point at which the review takes place. As such, recommendations are based on the evidence presented and on the interviews that take place. The review process is intended to be supportive and forward looking and will take future plans into account but only as future intentions, rather than actualities.

The Gateway Review Report and Delivery Confidence Assessment

The Gateway Review Report uses a Scottish Government template that records the:

• Programme or Project Background;
• Purpose and Conduct of the Review;
• Gateway Review Conclusion and Delivery Confidence Assessment;
• Findings and Recommendations;
• Previous Gateway Review Recommendations;
• Next Gateway Review;
• Distribution of the Gateway Review Report;
• An appendix covering the purpose of the Gateway Review;
• An appendix listing the Review Team membership and list of interviewees; and
• An appendix containing a Summary of Recommendations.

The 'Gateway Review Conclusion' section of the report is where the Review Team provide a Delivery Confidence Assessment (DCA) statement. DCA has been introduced by Office of Government Commerce into the Gateway Reporting process to provide a better means by which the Review Team can make a statement outlining their view of the likelihood of the project/programme delivering successfully. The DCA uses a RAG style indicator to provide an overall report status and Table 1 below details the definitions associated with the DCA outcome.

Table 1: Delivery Confidence Assessment

Previously, the report recommendations contained a RAG status but these are now categorised as:

Critical (Do Now) - To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome it is of the greatest importance that the programme / project should take action immediately.

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

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

Distribution of the Report

A draft review report is usually provided to the SRO on the afternoon of the last day of the Gateway Review. After the SRO has had a chance to read the report the Review Team and the SRO should discuss its contents. Over the following week the SRO and RTL will agree any drafting amendments before the RTL sends the 'final' report to the SRO and copies this to the CoE-PPM.

The CoE-PPM then sends an extract of the summary of report recommendations and the Delivery Confidence Assessment statement to the SRO and relevant organisational/SG Accounting Officer - the latter action is to provide a 'line of sight' to senior management. The SRO should maintain an official record of how Gateway Review recommendations have been implemented or setting out reasons for not implementing any recommendation. This will be considered at the Planning Meeting of the next review to provide the Review Team with an update on the actions taken.

The SRO is responsible for implementing recommendations, taking remedial action and for further circulation of the report as necessary. The SRO also is responsible for considering any Freedom of Information Request for the Gateway Report - advice should be taken from the CoE-PPM in any such case.

Review Feedback Process

Following the Review, the Gateway Review Director issues a Feedback Questionnaire to the SRO and the Review Team Leader and Members. This feedback process helps ensure that the Gateway Review process achieves and maintains a high standard of quality and where necessary improvements to the process can be identified.

Timing of Subsequent Reviews

A Gateway Report should include a suggested timescale for undertaking the next review. The CoE-PPM will contact the SRO around 3-4 months before this suggested next review date to enquire about the readiness of the programme or project for a review and whether the programme or project scope and/or risk profile has changed significantly since the last Review. If there has been significant change, the CoE-PPM may request an updated Risk Assessment Form is completed and a further Assessment Meeting is held to re-consider the nature of the Gateway Review support required.

Once the need for a repeat review and its timing is agreed, the CoE-PPM contacts the Review Team to "re-engage" them for this subsequent review and another Planning Meeting. A representative from the CoE-PPM will still attend the meeting, unless agreed otherwise by the RTL and SRO.

The repeat review Planning Meeting should require less time than the 3 hour duration of the initial Planning Meeting, given that the attendees should now be familiar with the Gateway Review process and how the Planning Meeting operates. The main difference from the first Planning Meeting is that the programme or project team are expected to provide an update on the actions taken on the recommendations from the previous review report.