Gateway reviews (assurance)

• The Queensland Government has endorsed the use of Gateway for major infrastructure programs and projects. If your project/program is estimated to cost more than $100 million, Gateway is recommended. However, Gateway can also provide benefits for lower valued projects, particularly where there are higher levels of risk and/or complexity.
• While not mandated the project owner should consider the potential benefits of a Gateway at critical milestones in the project lifecycle.

• The most common review we see in the Queensland Gateway Unit is for Gate 2 – Business Case stage. However, we recommend considering the benefits from reviews at both earlier stages (e.g. Gate 1 – Preliminary Evaluation) as well as at later stages (e.g. Gate 3 – Contract Award; Gate 4 – Readiness for Service; Gate 5 – Benefits Realisation). Contact the Gateway Unit to discuss potential Gates.
• The benefits of undertaking a Gateway early in the project lifecycle ensures there is time for the project owner to consider the feedback while planning is still at the early stages.

• We recommend initiating the planning process as soon as possible. Ideally, at least 2 months in advance to ensure availability of both reviewers and interviewees, and proper preparation for the review.

• A typical Gateway review involves a planning meeting 1-2 weeks prior to the review, to give the reviewers an initial overview of the project, the key issues, and time to examine relevant documentation; followed by the review period with 2-3 days of interviews and 1-2 days for report drafting.
• The Review Team will present findings to the Senior Responsible Officer (project owner) on the draft report day, with the final report submitted a week later, following fact-checking by the project team.

1. For new participants, we recommend contacting Treasury’s Gateway Unit (GU) on gatewayreviews@treasury.qld.gov.au to discuss the process.
2. Once a Gateway review is confirmed (including the applicable gate and timing for the review), the Gateway Unit will provide a list of recommended reviewers for the Project Team to shortlist.
3. The Gateway Unit then confirms reviewer availability, arranges expenditure approval from the Agency, and finalises contracts and confidentiality deeds.
4. The Planning Meeting involves the Review Team and Project Team and confirms plans for the review, key issues for the project, project documentation and stakeholders to be interviewed.
5. The Gateway review is held, with interviews and debriefings, followed by report writing.
6. Along with the final report, feedback is sought from the Project Team and Review Team, to allow for continuous improvements to the Gateway process.

The Gateway Unit does not participate in the review itself but is available to address any issues.

• While Gateway reviews do involve a time investment (see above), the review itself generally occurs over 3 to 5 days, and is structured to efficiently use stakeholder time.
• In return, the review report provides a set of focused, prioritised and practical recommendations for the project.
• In many cases, the guidance from a review can result in significant time savings across the project lifecycle.

• The Gateway Unit has a database of hundreds of accredited Gateway reviewers from across Australia and NZ, with skills and expertise in a wide range of major projects/programs.
• Using the Project Team’s requirements for key skills and experience, the Gateway Unit select a pool of potential reviewers. The Project Team can then assess this list, along with details of each reviewer’s skills and experience, to indicate their preferred reviewers.

• No, the purpose of a Gateway review is to be an independent review. Reviewers are required to declare any actual or potential conflict of interest.

• The final report and its recommendations are provided confidentially to the Project Owner. Confidentiality of reviews enables an open exchange between Project and Review Teams, ensuring all available information is considered in determining recommendations for the project.
• Review recommendations aim to be candid and practical, with an indication of whether they are critical (do now), essential (do by) or recommended (good practice).