Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Traditional reviews focus on scope and cost. Value checkpoints could instead validate whether the initiative still aligns with strategic intent. Could this model better reflect modern adaptability?
If we translate "strategic intent" to expected value realization then this is a common practice in a full benefits management lifestyle approach whereby portfolio components are regularly assessed not just for delivery success but also to evaluate whether expected benefits are still in line with expectations and whether the component is still worth investing in. Otherwise the organization risks significant opportunity costs.
Kiron Saving Changes...
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
I see it this way: the distinction is mostly semantic, unless the mindset behind the governance model actually changes.
Many organizations run traditional phase gates and still deliver strong value. Why? Because their decision discipline is solid: they reassess purpose, strategic alignment, emerging risks, and whether the project still deserves to continue. In those cases, the “phase gate” name doesn’t limit value at all. Conversely, simply renaming a gate to a value checkpoint changes nothing if the behaviors, questions, and courage behind the decision remain the same.
What really matters is this: Do we re-validate strategic intent? Do we ask whether the initiative still makes sense? Do we consider value beyond scope/time/cost? Do we allow stopping, pivoting, or redesigning?
If the answer is yes, then both phase gates and value checkpoints can work, the process delivers value because the governance is mature.
If the answer is no, then changing terminology won’t fix the underlying problem.
So the term may be semantic, but the mindset is not.
Value comes from how we decide, not from what we call the decision point.
In the end, governance evolves not through new labels, but through better questions and wiser decisions. Saving Changes...
I would want some elaboration on what you mean by "value checkpoints" before agreeing or disagreeing. Most projects deliver potential value - what gets produced usually doesn't deliver value simply by existing; somebody has to do something with it. With that in mind, there is no point before something functional is delivered that value can be produced.
If, instead, you're suggesting that we should regularly be checking to make sure that the original proposed value is still possible to achieve, within an acceptable range of variance, I would respond that this is something that the project sponsor should already be doing. Can we raise the question? Maybe. I think there are caveats.
This should probably be viewed as more of an organizational governance question that we can be allowed to surface, as opposed to a project governance question that we have a responsibility to surface. The question "Is the project still on track?" is a question the project manager can answer. However, the questions "What is the impact of the schedule slipping on potential value?" and "Even though the project is on track, have external factors changed that impact the potential value?" are not questions the project manager can answer.
As I think about this, it doesn't seem like there's a reason these questions can't be asked at roughly the same time. You can have both a phase gate and value checkpoint; the phase gate discussion could feed the value checkpoint discussion, but some time may be needed to understand the impact of the project status on the potential value, so you would probably want to provide the data prior to the phase gate meeting so that the sponsor has time to coordinate any needed decisions or approval for directional changes in advance.
I'm thinking as I type. Does this make sense? Saving Changes...
The prospective value of a project should absolutely be reassessed along the life of a project, however "traditional" gated processes often do that. The value equation often changes considerably over time, so it becomes important to reassess whether the same value equation still applies.
A personal experience which drove this point home to me was a project where we were upgrading older passenger airplanes to add wifi. If the project couldn't deliver before the summer peak travel season, it wouldn't generate enough revenue to justify the upgrade. The value to the customer depended on the delivery date and if we couldn't meet that date by the program decision gate milestone, then there was no point investing more effort. Saving Changes...
Value checkpoints make sense in today’s environment. Instead of only checking scope or cost, they help confirm if the work is still useful and aligned with strategy. I find they encourage honest conversations early, support faster decisions, and prevent teams from pushing forward just because a phase gate is next. It is a practical way to keep focus on real outcomes. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
In my case, we use stage gate model in our governance process. Our stages are value oriented checks. The point here is: which is the definition of value for your organization? Saving Changes...
Community Champion
