OGC Gateway Review 4: Readiness for Service

[Insert Security Classification once completed]

OGC Gateway™ Review 4: Readiness for service

Project Title: [Insert project name]

Version 5.0 (High Risk Delivery Confidence) 2016

© Crown Copyright 2016

This is a Value Added product, which is outside the scope of the HMSO core Licence

OGC Gateway™ Review 4: Readiness for service

Version number: / [Insert Draft 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 or Final 1.0]
Senior Responsible Owner (SRO): / [Insert name]
Date of issue to SRO: / [Insert date]
Project Title: / [Insert programme name]
Department/Organisation of the Programme / [Insert name]
Agency or NDPB (if applicable): / [Insert name]
Review dates: / [Insert dates dd/mm/yyyy to dd/mm/yyyy]
Review Team Leader: / [Insert name of team leader]
Review Team Members: / [Insert name of team member]
[Insert name of team member]
[Insert name of team member]
Previous Review: / [Insert review type]
[Insert dates]
[Insert Delivery Confidence Assessment -DCA]
IPA ID number: / [Insert number]
GMPP ID number (For IPA use only): / [Insert number]

Delivery Confidence Assessment

Delivery Confidence Assessment: / [Insert status: Red, Amber, Green etc.]
The Review Team finds that [Insert a statement outlining the Review Team’s view of the likelihood of the project delivering successfully.]
[Please refer to the “Delivery Confidence - Guide for Review Teams”. The statement should be an overview of the key issues that the Review Team consider have the greatest impact on Delivery Confidence. Additional evidence based views and recommendations should be included in the body of the report.]

The Delivery Confidence assessment RAG status should use the definitions below:

RAG / Criteria Description
Green / Successful delivery of the project to time, cost and quality appears highly likely and there are no major outstanding issues that at this stage appear to threaten delivery.
Amber/Green / Successful delivery appears probable. However, constant attention will be needed to ensure risks do not materialise into major issues threatening delivery.
Amber / Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist requiring management attention. These appear resolvable at this stage and, if addressed promptly, should not present a cost/schedule overrun.
Amber/Red / Successful delivery of the project is in doubt with major risks or issues apparent in a number of key areas. Urgent action is needed to ensure these are addressed, and establish whether resolution is feasible.
Red / Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable. There are major issues which, at this stage, do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-base lining and/or overall viability re-assessed.

Summary of Report Recommendations

The Review Team makes the following recommendations which are prioritised using the definitions below:

[N.B. When assigning a classification to a recommendation, reviewers will need to consult the “Guide to the Classification of Recommendations” where they will find a list of the classifications and their meanings.]

Ref. No. / Recommendation / Critical/
Essential/
Recommended / Target date for completion / Classification
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /
/ Choose an item. /

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

Essential (Do By) – To increase the likelihood of a successful outcome the project should take action in the near future.

[Note to review teams – 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 project should benefit from the uptake of this recommendation.

[Note to review teams – 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.]

Comments from the SRO

[Insert comments here]

Background

The aims of the project:

[Insert two or three short paragraphs on the key aims of the project]

The driving force for the project:

[Insert a statement that describes why the project came into existence and/or is necessary. Consider, for example; the deficiency, need, issue, political imperative or opportunity that instigated the project. Also state the programme to which the project contributes, if applicable]

The procurement/delivery status:

[Insert a statement that describes how far the procurement process has progressed within the project]

Current position regarding previous assurance reviews:

[Insert a statement that describes which assurance review have already taken place on the project.]

[Note whether the recommendations of any earlier assurance reviews of the project have been implemented and, if not, comment on the justification for any alternative course of action.]

The SRO’s Osmotherley letter (letter of appointment) has been approved/not approved* at the appropriate levels.

*delete as appropriate

[If not in place, please indicate the reason and expected date of approval.]

A summary of recommendations, progress and status from the previous assurance review can be found in Annex C.

Purposes and conduct of the Gateway Review

The primary purposes of a Gateway Review 4: Readiness for service, are to confirm that contractual arrangements are up to date, that necessary testing has been done to the client’s satisfaction and that the client is ready to approve implementation.

Annex A gives the full purposes statement for a Gateway Review 4.

Annex B lists the people who were interviewed during the review.

Acknowledgement

[Insert a note of thanks to the SRO and the client team. e.g. “The Review Team would like to thank the Client X Project Team for their support and openness, which contributed to the Review Team’s understanding of the Project and the outcome of this review”.

Scope of the Review

[The scope of the review is determined by the stage the programme is at in its lifecycle e.g. early, mid, final. The relevant OGC Gateway workbook refers you to the scope for the review]

Review Team findings and recommendations

1: Business Case and stakeholders

[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]

2: Risk management

[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]

3: Review of current phase

[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]

4: Readiness for next phase – Operations review and benefits realisation

[Insert findings – brief paragraphs setting out key findings. Where appropriate, include recommendations (in bold text) relating to individual findings]

Next Assurance Review

[Insert suggested next review type, timing, areas to be covered and/or milestone/s to be achieved]

ANNEX A

Purposes of the OGC Gateway Review 4: Readiness for service:

• Check that the current phase of the contract is properly completed and documentation completed.
• Ensure that the contractual arrangements are up-to-date.
• Check that the Business Case is still valid and unaffected by internal and external events or changes.
• Check that the original projected business benefit is likely to be achieved.
• Ensure that there are processes and procedures to ensure long-term success of the project.
• Confirm that all necessary testing is done (e.g. commissioning of buildings, business integration and user acceptance testing) to the client’s satisfaction and that the client is ready to approve implementation.
• Check that there are feasible and tested business contingency, continuity and/or reversion arrangements.
• Ensure that all ongoing risks and issues are being managed effectively and do not threaten implementation.
• Evaluate the risk of proceeding with the implementation where there are any unresolved issues.
• Confirm the business has the necessary resources and that it is ready to implement the services and the business change.
• Confirm that the client and supplier implementation plans are still achievable.
• Confirm that there are management and organisational controls to manage the project through implementation and operation.
• Confirm that contract management arrangements are in place to manage the operational phase of the contract.
• Confirm arrangements for handover of the project from the SRO to the operational business owner.
• Confirm that all parties have agreed plans for training, communication, roll-out, production release and support as required.
• Confirm that all parties have agreed plans for managing risk.
• Confirm that there are client-side plans for managing the working relationship, with reporting arrangements at appropriate levels in the organisation, reciprocated on the supplier side.
• Confirm information assurance accreditation/certification.
• Confirm that defects or incomplete works are identified and recorded.
• Check that lessons for future projects are identified and recorded.
• Evaluation of actions taken to implement recommendations made in any earlier assessment of deliverability.

ANNEX B

List of Interviewees

The following stakeholders were interviewed during the review:

Name / Organisation and role

[Add or delete rows as required]

ANNEX C

Progress against previous assurance review (insert review dates) recommendations:

Recommendation / Progress/Status

[Add or delete rows as required]

[Insert Security Classification once completed]

Page 1 of 12

This report is an evidence-based snapshot of the project's status at the time of the review. It reflects the views of the independent review team, based on information evaluated over the review period, and is delivered to the SRO immediately at the conclusion of the review.