The Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) has released its report on the operation of the Gateway Review Process phased in by the Federal Government over three years after the 2006-07 Budget to cover government projects of $10 million and over for IT projects, and $20 million and over for other procurement and infrastructure projects that were assessed as representing a high risk in Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 (FMA Act) agencies.

 

The Gateway Review Process is a is a project assurance methodology developed in the United Kingdom to improve the delivery of major projects.

 

Under the Gateway Review system, a red/amber/green (RAG) rating is used to indicate the overall assessment of delivery confidence for the project. Until mid‐2009, the traffic light system related to the urgency of addressing report findings but this has now changed to relate to the confidence in delivering the project outcomes.

 

Over the five years to June 2011, a total of 150 Gateway reviews were completed, related to 46 ‘high risk’ projects across 23 agencies estimated to cost in aggregate in excess of $17.6 billion at the time the projects commenced. 74% of the reviews were of !CT projects, 22% were infrastructure projects, and 4% were procurement projects.

 

The ANAO audit of the Gateway Review process found that it has been effectively implemented. It noted that  “In the first three years, about one in every five reviews identified that there were significant issues that needed to be addressed before the project proceeded further. In the last two years6, there have been no reviews that have identified major issues requiring urgent action.”

 

“However, participation in the Gateway review process does not guarantee success in meeting specified project objectives. At least three of the nine projects that have completed the full suite of Gateway reviews up to 30 June 2011 were not completed on time and on budget and/or did not deliver the outcomes expected when funding was approved.”

 

The audit also found that not all projects that met the criteria were subject to Gateway reviews and two recommendations to address this.

 

It also recommended that the Department of Finance and Deregulation (DAFF) “examine the merits of conducting annual Gateway reviews for projects where there would otherwise be an extended delay between reviews” to ensure those projects are being progressed in accordance with the stated objectives and time, cost and quality parameters expected at the time funding was originally approved by government.

 

DAFF should also:

  • periodically analyse the time, cost and scope outcomes achieved by completed projects against the parameters expected at the time funding was originally approved by government, and compare this with the findings and ratings of the Gateway review report for each project; and
  • implement appropriate measures to promote a greater focus by agencies on the timely and effective implementation of Gateway review report recommendations.

The ANAO report is available here.