PodBOK brings industry guidance together with real-world experience from major projects. Use it to inform your approach, and check the facts and requirements that apply to your project.
1.Name the decision before planning the review
Start the phase with the decision its work must support. Is leadership deciding whether to investigate an opportunity, select a concept, release a defined commitment or accept readiness for handover? Write the question, the choices available and the authority needed. This gives the team a reason for the evidence it is preparing.
Put it into practice: open the review brief with a decision statement and the commitment being requested. Ask the decision maker and delivery team to agree its meaning before assembling the presentation. Keep status updates available as supporting information, and reserve review time for the choice, its uncertainty and consequences.
2.Ask whether it is ready and whether it is still worth doing
Treat technical readiness and continuing business value as connected questions that each need an answer. The team may have completed the planned work while the market, strategy or portfolio has changed. Equally, a desirable opportunity may need more preparation before the next commitment is sensible.
Put it into practice: show both judgments in the recommendation. Identify what has changed since the previous decision and what the organisation would gain or give up by proceeding now. Explain a hold, recycle or stop recommendation with the same care as a recommendation to continue.
3.Match the evidence to the decision and the project
Agree what must be known for this commitment, how it will be demonstrated and which uncertainty can remain. An early option choice and permission to start a critical activity need different evidence. Tailor the review to the project's complexity and consequences without waiving requirements that actually govern the work.
Put it into practice: map each requested deliverable to the question it answers, its required maturity and the person who will check it. Use the relevant assessment method for the project type. When evidence is incomplete, describe the consequence and the plan to close the gap.
4.Separate the decision, the recommendation and the assurance
State who is accountable for the choice, who recommends it, who supplies evidence and who challenges it. A technical reviewer, a sponsor and the person authorised to release funds can have different responsibilities. The project needs to know which approvals are required and what happens when reviewers disagree.
Put it into practice: publish the local decision rights and escalation route with the review plan. Give assurance findings to the accountable decision maker alongside the team's response.
5.Ask for the evidence behind the claimed maturity
A green status or completed-document label needs an understandable basis. Ask what exists, which version was reviewed, whether the right disciplines agreed it and what remains unresolved. A structured assessment is most useful when it helps the team discover and address a gap.
Put it into practice: select consequential claims and follow them to the actual deliverable and its responsible discipline. Invite the people outside the core task force whose inputs the claim depends on. Some gaps Roger describes came from misunderstanding or an assumption that a deliverable had been issued, rather than deliberate concealment.
6.Make informed challenge part of preparation
Bring delivery, operations, commercial, controls and relevant external-interface knowledge into preparation while it can still influence the recommendation. A polished pack can conceal a conversation that never happened. People also need a credible route to raise an unwelcome assumption or conflicting interpretation.
Put it into practice: ask contributors which assumption they would challenge and what evidence would change their view. Record significant disagreement and its effect on the decision. Resolve what can be resolved before the gate, and present genuine remaining differences openly rather than rushing the room into apparent agreement.
7.Keep the decision basis current between gates
Approval rests on a set of conditions that can change before the next scheduled review. A changed scope, supplier, permission, funding position or benefit assumption may affect what was authorised. Keep the basis visible throughout delivery, with a proportionate way to assess changes and escalate those that matter.
Put it into practice: identify the assumptions most capable of changing the decision, give them owners and agree the triggers for reconsideration. Record the evidence date and version behind a recommendation. Do not wait for the next calendar gate when a material change requires action under the project's authority arrangements.
8.Make overlapping work a controlled commitment
Some projects develop and release packages at different speeds. If work overlaps, make the authority and exposure of each release explicit. An early equipment order, site activity or design instruction can constrain later options even when the wider project is still being developed.
Put it into practice: define the scope, spend limit, dependencies and stop conditions for an early release, and identify the person authorised to accept its exposure. Keep technical, safety, regulatory and contractual approvals intact.
9.Leave the gate with a usable decision record
Record what the organisation decided, the rationale, the commitment released and the work still required. If the result is hold or recycle, explain what would make a future review useful. If the project stops, preserve the evidence and deal explicitly with the obligations already created.
Put it into practice: issue the decision with named owners, dates and closure evidence for any conditions. State what may proceed while each condition is open and who can change that instruction. Confirm the record with the people carrying out the next phase so the decision does not become a different story as it travels.
10.Learn from the reasoning as well as the outcome
A favourable outcome can follow a weak decision, and a well-reasoned decision can still encounter an adverse event. Review both the result and the reasoning available at the time. This helps distinguish a mistaken assumption, missing evidence, poor follow-through and uncertainty that was understood and accepted.
Put it into practice: revisit selected decisions with their original evidence and assumptions. Ask what was reasonably knowable, whether concerns were heard, and whether the agreed actions happened. Use the findings to improve the next review's questions, evidence and capability. Avoid judging the process solely by whether the project happened to finish well.
This top 10's Bookshelf
Explore the sources behind this article and related reading from our Bookshelf.
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) Overview
Construction Industry Institute · Referenced by PodBOK
Why it's on the shelfCII describes PDRI as a way to examine scope definition and identify gaps during front-end planning. Its overview recommends using assessments before the final funding decision, with a tool suited to the project type. A score supports the discussion; it does not itself authorize an investment.
Referenced in this top 10 Match the evidence to the decision and the project.
Gate 3 Review: Investment Decision
National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority · Referenced by PodBOK
Why it's on the shelfThis UK gateway review examines the investment case and readiness to deliver. It distinguishes independent assurance from continuing governance and asks reviewers to examine actual progress alongside documents. Its questions cover the integrated case, assumptions, delivery capability and management controls.
Referenced in this top 10 Separate the decision, the recommendation and the assurance.
The Green Book (2026)
HM Treasury · Referenced by PodBOK
Why it's on the shelfThe Green Book examines options, costs, benefits and uncertainty within an integrated investment case. Its treatment of sunk costs and sensitivity analysis helps challenge whether a preferred option still makes sense.
Referenced in this top 10 Keep the decision basis current between gates.
Keep exploring
Bibliography
Explore the conversations, publications and reading behind this top 10.
Podcast conversations
-
Conversation with Iwona Wilson
Passages and links
-
Ask whether the project is ready and whether it is still wanted
Iwona Wilson
Wilson separates readiness to proceed from the business choice to proceed. Completed preparation does not settle whether the opportunity still fits the organisation, market or available options. She describes proceeding, recycling, holding and stopping as possible results.
-
Make room for concerns before people censor themselves
Iwona Wilson
Wilson describes how rushed meetings and dismissive responses can cause participants to withhold concerns. She recommends making issues visible and involving people with operations, delivery, regulatory, community, controls and safety knowledge early enough to shape the opportunity.
-
Review the reasoning available when the decision was made
Iwona Wilson
Wilson distinguishes the quality of a decision from the outcome that later occurs. She asks what was known at the time, which alternatives and trade-offs were considered, how the recommendation followed from the evidence and whether the people needed to act were committed.
-
-
Conversation with Roger Farish
Passages and links
-
Probe the evidence behind the maturity assessment
Roger Farish
Farish describes PDRI facilitation in which probing questions exposed gaps behind apparently complete deliverables and optimistic scores. He asks the relevant disciplines to speak, including people outside the core task force. He distinguishes this work supporting assurance from chairing an owner's formal gate review.
-
Project leadership needs a decision at each gate
Roger Farish
Farish describes front-end planning as a sequence of decisions about whether the investment still makes sense. His project management experience informs this lesson about gates; the project must define who has authority to approve them.
-
-
Conversation with James Wiseman
Passages and links
-
Recognise when work packages move at different speeds
James Wiseman
Wiseman describes fast-moving energy work in which engineering is sequenced to release materials and keep delivery moving, rather than waiting for one complete design package before everything else starts. His example makes the overlap between technical work and commitment decisions visible.
-
Publications and further reading
-
Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) Overview
Construction Industry Institute · Cited source
Publication details
Public overview of the PDRI family; no numbered overview edition stated
Opening explanation of scope definition and front-end planning; repeated assessments before authorization; guidance on selecting a PDRI for the project type.
The source is CII's public PDRI overview. Detailed score sheets, manuals and validation studies are separate publications.
-
Gate 3 Review: Investment Decision
National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority · Cited source
Publication details
Public HTML guidance updated 20 August 2026
Introduction, assurance framework, tailoring and purpose; Assessment of the Proposed Solution, general business-case question and management questions 6.14, 6.19 and 6.20.
Gate 3 numbering and approval arrangements describe the UK government assurance process.
-
The Green Book (2026)
HM Treasury · Cited source
Publication details
2026 edition; public HTML updated 28 October 2026
Overview of appraisal and Five Case Model; Chapter 6, Sunk costs and Sensitivity analysis and switching values.
This guidance is written for UK public-sector proposals, including its social-value framework and discount rates.
From the knowledge library
What the PDRI Room Reports vs What Probing Reveals
Original card context
From the PDRI stories, ~28:00–35:40 · lower PDRI score = better definition
Source context
Gate names, numbering, authority and evidence requirements vary by organisation.
Roger Farish's examples concern PDRI facilitation. James Wiseman describes overlapping delivery work; that example does not prescribe a gate sequence.
PodBOK · The Major Project Podcast
https://www.themajorprojectpodcast.com/podbok/stage-gate-tips · Updated 2026-11-01