A project review can become anchored to the approved budget or money already spent. Those figures matter for governance and learning, but they should not be the only basis for releasing the next tranche of funding. A useful stage gate compares the remaining cost, achievable benefits, downside exposure and alternatives from today forward.
Reframe the decision
Consider this illustrative example, not a client result:
- Original approved budget: $240,000
- Spent to date: $150,000
- Revised cost to complete: $130,000
- Remaining quantified cash benefit within the planning window: $210,000
- Orderly stop and close cost: $25,000
The revised total forecast is $280,000, so the project is $40,000 above its original budget. That variance requires explanation and governance action. For the continue-or-stop decision, however, the $150,000 already spent is sunk. Continuing has an illustrative gross incremental spread of $80,000 before delivery risk, timing, financing, tax and discounting: $210,000 of remaining benefit less $130,000 of remaining cost.
Stopping is not free either. It may require $25,000 to close contracts, secure data, transition users or preserve reusable work. The decision also needs to compare what the same people and funds could achieve elsewhere. A positive incremental spread does not automatically mean “continue.” It means the option deserves risk-adjusted comparison.
Use five questions at every gate
- What will it cost from today to a usable outcome? Re-estimate internal effort, suppliers, licences, testing, transition and support. Do not simply subtract spend from the original budget.
- Which benefits are still achievable? Link each benefit to a deliverable, owner, timing assumption and evidence. Remove benefits that no longer fit the scope or planning window.
- What could invalidate the case? Identify the few uncertainties that could materially change cost, timing, adoption or cash benefit. Record a range when a single number would imply false precision.
- What are the real options? Compare continue, stop, pause, reduce scope and sequence a smaller release. Include close costs and the value of releasing capacity.
- Who decides, by when and on what evidence? A stage gate needs a named decision owner, a due date and explicit conditions for the next funding release.
A compact gate pack
| Decision field | Evidence to show |
|---|---|
| Cost to complete | Re-estimate, committed costs, contingency and assumptions |
| Benefits at risk | Benefit, owner, timing, dependency and confidence range |
| Delivery evidence | Working output, acceptance results and unresolved exceptions |
| Alternatives | Continue, stop, pause or reduced-scope comparison |
| Decision | Owner, date, conditions, funding released and next review |
Measure decision quality, not only schedule status
Across a portfolio, track forecast cost to complete, benefits at risk, unresolved gate conditions and the time between evidence being ready and a decision being made. Review how often initiatives are reshaped, paused or stopped after new evidence. A timely stop can protect capital and capacity; it is not automatically a delivery failure.
Keep the calculation transparent. Separate confirmed cash impacts from labour capacity, strategic benefits and qualitative risks. Where benefits arrive over several years, compare cash flows on a consistent time basis and test the assumptions that matter most.
Make the next funding decision explicit
Advancement Advisors supports project and portfolio management, business cases, financial planning and delivery assurance from Regina, Saskatchewan. A focused project-health review can clarify the remaining work, decision evidence and practical recovery options.
Discuss a project health review ↗
Explore project, program and portfolio management, technology investment planning and the bookkeeping automation control checklist.