Phase Gates and approvals in PM²: when a project can genuinely move forward

Fourteenth article in the “Learning PM² Through a Project” series

Lifecycle phases are not merely chapters of a plan. In PM², moving from one phase to the next requires an explicit decision: the Phase Gate.

A gate answers a specific question: do we have enough clarity, evidence and authorisation to invest in the next phase?

The three PM² gates

At the end of Closing, the project is formally concluded (Project Ended). This is not a gate into a new phase; it confirms that the project is closed.

What a Phase Gate is not

A gate is not:

• a recurring progress meeting;
• an automatic approval because a calendar date has arrived;
• a formal check of documents alone;
• a decision the PM may make alone, unless authority has been explicitly delegated.

It is a governance point: the authorised decision-makers check whether the essential conditions are met and decide to proceed, proceed with conditions, defer, change or stop the project.

The logic: reduce uncertainty before increasing commitment

flowchart LR
  A[Initial uncertainty] --> B[RfP]
  B --> C[Detailed planning]
  C --> D[RfE]
  D --> E[Build and deliver]
  E --> F[RfC]
  F --> G[Formal closing]

The principle is not bureaucratic. As the project progresses, it consumes more resources and changing direction becomes more expensive. A gate checks that the next investment remains justified.

RfP: Ready for Planning

RfP concludes Initiating. It does not certify that the project is planned in detail; it authorises investment of time and capacity to do that planning.

Decision-makers normally need to see at least:

The outcome may be: approved; approved with conditions; deferred pending additions; rejected or stopped.

RfE: Ready for Executing

RfE concludes Planning. It is often the most consequential gate because it makes the plan, resources and expectations a commitment.

The question is: is the project planned well enough to start in a controlled way?

The items normally checked include:

• Project Handbook and defined roles and responsibilities;
• Project Work Plan with deliverables, activities, schedule, estimates and dependencies;
• proportionate management plans for requirements, risks, issues, changes, quality and communication;
• deliverable acceptance criteria;
• transition, business implementation or outsourcing readiness where relevant;
• aligned resources, budget and key stakeholders.

RfE does not require absolute certainty. It requires an approved baseline solid enough to manage the remaining uncertainty through Monitor & Control.

RfC: Ready for Closing

RfC concludes Executing. It does not simply mean “development is finished”. It means planned deliverables have been completed and accepted — or that any exceptions have been decided and documented — and that the project can enter Closing.

Typical checks include:

• delivery and acceptance of deliverables;
• management or transfer of remaining issues;
• readiness of transition and adoption;
• evidence of quality and contractual compliance, where applicable;
• conditions for releasing team members and resources.

Closing must not become a parking area for work that is still undelivered. If material items are missing, the project remains in Executing, unless governance consciously decides a change in scope, date or acceptance conditions.

Who approves?

PM² does not prescribe one universally valid signature for every organisation. Authority depends on the governance defined in the Project Charter and, in PM² practice, involves the roles representing business, solution and direction.

The point to remember: the PM governs the process and brings an informed proposal; the competent authority decides whether the project moves forward.

The Annotatio case: the RfE gate for Smart Bookings

The Smart Bookings project has passed RfP: the Business Case shows that reducing calls and no-shows brings value to gyms, and the Project Charter identifies PO, SP, BM and PM.

Before RfE, however, two facts emerge:

• the Project Work Plan does not yet define the dependency on the push-notification provider;
• one pilot gym has not confirmed who will train collaborators.

Saying “let’s start anyway and see later” is not a sound gate decision. The PSC could, for example:

1. defer RfE until both points are clarified;
2. approve with conditions, assigning clear owners and dates;
3. approve a reduced initial scope, temporarily excluding push notifications.

What matters is that any condition is explicit, has an owner and is checked. A condition without an owner is only a hope.

Do not confuse these

Three questions to anchor it

1. Which gate authorises the start of detailed planning?
2. Why is RfE not a guarantee that the project will never change again?
3. What must happen before calling a project Project Ended?

Flashcards

Q: What are the three PM² Phase Gates?
A: RfP (Ready for Planning), RfE (Ready for Executing) and RfC (Ready for Closing).

Q: What is the purpose of RfE?
A: To verify and authorise that the project has a sufficiently planned and approved foundation to enter Executing.

Q: Is a gate approved with conditions a full approval?
A: It is conditional authorisation: conditions must be explicit, assigned and verified.

Exam-style question

A PM declares that RfC has been passed because development is complete. Two deliverables have not yet been accepted by users and a critical issue remains open.

What is the correct assessment?

Answer: completed development is not enough. RfC requires that the state of deliverables, their acceptance and remaining issues is appropriate for entering Closing. Exceptions must be decided and documented by the competent governance authority.

Source

The RfP, RfE and RfC gates and their place in the lifecycle are described in the European Commission’s PM² Methodology Guide 3.1.

The next article will focus on the Project Work Plan: turning scope, deliverables, activities, estimates and dependencies into a plan that can actually be used.