Stage-gate governance

Stage-gate progression

Initiative progresses through the StageGates ladder. When the Initiative Owner believes all GateCriteria for the current Stage are met, they flip Initiatives.Status: ReadyForGate. The stage-gate-promotion workflow validates each mandatory Criterion has an attached deliverable, creates a GateReviews header bound to the Stage’s GateScorecard, fans out GateScorecards line items per GateReviewBoard member, and emails reviewers with the packet and review-due date. Reviewers fill their GateScorecards (Score per Dimension, Vote, Notes); scores are masked from the Initiative Owner pre-decision. At the meeting, the Facilitator (Portfolio Manager) records the decision (GateReviews.Status: Approved | ConditionallyApproved | Rejected | Deferred) and DecisionRationale; on Approved, a second branch of the workflow flips Initiatives.CurrentStage to the next stage in the ladder and Status back to InFlight. The decision service first enforces the frozen evidence requirements, score threshold, distinct non-conflicting reviewer quorum and expected revision. Conditional approval keeps the initiative at the current stage until its recorded conditions are satisfied and an authorized reviewer confirms. The facilitator cannot bypass those checks.

Initiative close and continuous governance

When an Initiative passes the Release gate and KPIs trend toward target, the Sustain stage owns the long-tail benefit measurement. At end-of-life, Initiative Owner sets Status: Completed with ActualEndDate; final KPI measurements feed the benefit-realization report; the Initiative drops off the live roadmap. Lessons (templates, Scorecard tuning, StageGate tuning) flow back to Admin + Portfolio Manager for the next-cycle MDM updates.

Handle a conditional decision

A review may find the business case acceptable while a mandatory deliverable still needs correction. Record the condition, its evidence and the responsible owner. Keep the initiative at its current stage while the condition is open. A note that the owner intends to fix the problem does not supply the missing evidence, and a reminder email does not change the decision.

When the evidence is ready, the authorized reviewer confirms that the condition has been satisfied under the review policy. Keep the confirmation linked to the original conditional decision. If the proposal or required criteria materially changed, open a replacement review with the correct policy version rather than rewriting the earlier vote.

Preserve independence and voting privacy

A person preparing the initiative’s evidence cannot become an independent reviewer of their own work. Count the eligible submitted scorecards against the frozen quorum and score threshold. Reviewers see their own scorecards while the review is open; other reviewers’ scores remain masked until closure. The facilitator can see the workflow outcome needed to conduct the meeting without acquiring permission to change submitted scores. Test quorum failure and missing evidence as ordinary operating cases, with a clear explanation for why progression remains unavailable.