By David Stokes, New Product Development and Innovation Professional

This is based on a paper I presented at a conference a couple of years back. I’ll try and provide a condensed version here of what I talked about, but you are welcome to download the pdf of the paper here.

• No one has prepared (or they weren’t provided with any information until 5 minutes before the meeting) and most of the meeting is taken up with trying to get everyone up to date rather than focusing on making the required decision....
• It ends up being what could be an endless discussion that goes off track (and then people have trouble remembering what they were actually meant to be deciding)....
• You run out of time and people start leaving for their next meeting, so a decision isn’t made...
• Key people don’t turn up, or you get a “cast of thousands” who want to voice their opinions... and the people that didn’t turn up try to overturn the decision that was made..
• The MD/CEO gets frustrated with lack of progress and ends up ends up making the decision him/her self, even though they may not necessarily be the person with the needed knowledge or experience

1.   Early, Event-Based Decisions Add the Most Value

I think most of you would agree that the longer you delay a needed decision, the less effect that decision is going to have on the outcome – often you’ll end up in a “fire-fighting” situation. But on the other side of the coin, there’s no use trying to make specific decisions early on in the project when there isn’t enough information. So what should be happening is getting the decisions made at the required time. This is one of the main premises behind Stage-Gate, ie: there are a number of decisions that need to be made at different points in the NPD projects, ie: gates. And each during each of the stages, the team is collecting the information required for the upcoming gate.

1. Go

The project team is given the green light to proceed through the next stage.

BUT – IT’S A 2-WAY STREET: the decision makers are also committing the required staff, capital, expenses, facilities, etc. I don’t know how many times in all of the organisations I’ve worked for where a decision is made to proceed, but the project is not given the resources needed to do it. So therefore, one of the key pieces of information the decision makers should be provided with is the resource requirements – the decision should be made based on the resource requirements.

2. No-Go

This can happen for a number of reasons, eg: the project doesn’t fit the agreed strategy, the product doesn’t meet the agreed market requirements, isn’t technically feasible to develop or the organisation is not able to provide the required resources (refer my note above).

Now remember, this is actually a good outcome!! What the project team have actually identified is that the project, for any of the reasons mentioned above, is not going to be successful. The best decision could be to stop the project (or for the right reasons, it could be put on hold) and to focus the organisations resources on a product/project that is more likely to be successful. I know form first-hand experience, this is easier said than done trying to convince the project team that they have actually done a good thing by recommending that he project is stopped. But do take the effort to communicate it from a top level across the organisation of the good decision and great work the team has done.

3. Redirect

This decision outcome is used when there is not enough information to make a Go or No-Go decision and/or the preparation is incomplete. Remember, the decision makers time is extremely valuable, so the call for a redirect is best done in advance so as to not waste people’s time.

The material is prepared for the decision makers to aid them in making the decision. This should be defined by your NPD process – what information is required at the different stages of the process, eg: business case and supporting financial information.

2. In preceding week

The material that has been prepared should be provided to the decision makers well in advance, eg: 1 week before the meeting. This will enable the decision makers to review the material, ask any questions and raise issues in advance, which should also be answered/resolved beforehand. This means that the meeting is focused on making the decision required without being taken off track or getting bogged down - there should not be any surprises at the gate review!

3. Gate Review

The meeting itself is also very structured. It should be quite clear who is running the meeting and who is present. And you don’t want the “cast of thousands” at the meeting: it should be the person presenting summary information (often the project manager) and the decision makers. If other “interested parties” are present, there is a risk that they will take they will take the meeting off track – if they aren’t part of making the decision, they shouldn’t be there.

4. Publish Record of Decision (ROD)

The decision is captured and then approved by each of the decision makers.   This ensures that it is very clear what the decision was and who made the decision.

After the gate review, the decision is communicated to the people that need to know.  As mentioned earlier, the outcome might have been a “Conditional-Go”, meaning that there are a number of outstanding points that need to be addressed. These need to be followed up on as required.

Who the decision makers are should be clearly understood within the organisation. Each decision maker will often have a certain area of responsibility, eg: Marketing, Engineering, Finance, Portfolio, etc. For their area of responsibility, they are to make judgement (Go, No-Go, or Re-direct) on the project being reviewed and highlight any issues to the other decision makers. But, as mentioned earlier, these issues should be brought up and addressed prior to the gate review – again, there should be no surprises at the gate review.

This person will present the information to the decision makers and will often be the project manager.

The chairperson is often one of the decision makers anyway, but they are the “owner” of the decision making process and ensures that there is the organisational commitment and accountability to enable success of the projects. They should encourage active, open, and honest participation by other Decision makers and the presenter to bring issues to the table and address them during the review. And sometimes they may need to act as the tie-breaker when decision makers are deadlocked.

The facilitator is handy to organise the meetings, ensure that the documentation is provided in advance, the right people are present, the meeting keeps to the agenda and that the documentation (Record of Decision) is sent out after the meeting.

• Live up to the Record of Decision

If the gate reviews are to avoid becoming a “rubber stamp”, the decision makers must be able to enforce the decisions it makes – the Record of Decision (ROD) is the key document to do this

• Don’t allow projects to work ahead of the next gate

The Gate Review process is an important mechanism to allow the decision makers to maintain control of the level of investment in a project as a function of risk and priority – allowing teams to work ahead of the next gate can undermine this level of control.

• Prepare, Prepare, Prepare

Good decisions require good preparation – by the team, preparing the gate review material, and by the decision makers, reviewing the material and providing feedback.

The gate review is for making decisions, not in-depth discussion on issues and solutions. It’s a good idea for the Project Manager to follow up with each decision maker one-on-one prior to the gate review to discuss gate content and issues prior to the gate review. There should be no surprises at the gate review. 

• Be prepared to follow the rules

Gate material should be out on time and decision makers reviewed the material giving feedback to the Project Manager. The decision makers complain when the material doesn’t come out on time. The Project Manager complains that the decision makers don’t read the material before the gate review. It’s tough to balance following process vs. impact on project. But we need to “break the cycle”

• Follow-up on the ROD action items

Don’t let ROD action items “fall through the cracks”. Outstanding ROD action items should be reviewed at each gate review.

• The ROD should be completed and sent out within 48 hrs of gate meeting

The ROD has most effect while the gate review is fresh in people’s minds. Some action items resulting from the gate review may have time urgency, so they need to be communicated ASAP.