Gate 1 asks: is this worth doing? Complete this record to bring an idea to the Approver for a decision. Keep it light — this is a filter, not a design. The live copy is held in the team’s work-tracking system; this is the blank template. Once approved, the content carries forward into Gate 2 (FSD-FRM-02).
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Solution title | |
| Status | Draft / Submitted / Approved |
| Solution Owner | (accountable for this solution) |
| Contributors | |
| Date | |
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Overview | What is the idea, in a sentence or two? |
| Customer | Internal team or named customer(s) |
| Requirement / outcome | The gap we are plugging and the outcome sought. High-level scope. State whether this is a one-off requirement or the start of a service that must scale. |
| Benefits | Internal and/or external |
Primary driver: Value / Compliance / Risk reduction — state which. For compliance- or risk-driven work the case rests on §4 (impact of doing nothing) and the cited obligation or risk record, not the value total; a low score does not weaken a mandated case. Score the lenses anyway, for prioritisation.
Score each lens 1–3 (1 = low, 3 = high). A priority signal, not a pass/fail.
| Lens | Score (1–3) | Evidence / note |
|---|
| Growth — new revenue, users or capability | | |
| Retention — keeps current users, or protects a service they rely on | | |
| Efficiency — saves time, cost or toil | | |
| Risk & compliance — reduces a risk or meets an obligation | | e.g. closes an exception, meets a regulatory measure |
| Total | | |
Size each as S / M / L with a short note. Remember to consider all aspects — monitoring, security, billing, support, and documentation — not just the build.
| Category | Size (S/M/L) | Note |
|---|
| People | | |
| CAPEX | | Purchase / one-off costs |
| OPEX | | Ongoing run / licensing / support costs |
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Impact of doing nothing | |
| Why now? | The compelling event — a customer opportunity, a technology change, something on the critical path |
| When does this expire? | A date or trigger to revisit the case. No clear date? Set a reminder for a quarter or two out. |
| Option | Pros | Cons | Dependencies | Preferred? |
|---|
| #1 | | | | |
| #2 | | | | |
Due diligence so a new dependency comes in through the front door, not the back. Fill this whenever the work adopts a new tool, product or supplier — regardless of cost or effort.
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| New tech / tool? | Yes / No — what is being adopted |
| Vendor & licensing | Licence model and cost; the supplier, and how they’ve been to deal with so far |
| Upgrade path | How and how often it’s updated; its support / end-of-life horizon |
| Support & ownership | Who owns and supports it once live |
| Exit / alternatives | How we’d get off it if needed; alternatives considered |
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| PoC needed? | Yes / No |
| Objective | What question does the PoC answer? |
| Success criteria | How we judge it proved |
| Method & cost | Where you’ll run it, and what it costs |
| Resources & duration | |
| Result / conclusion | Completed after the PoC, before Gate 2 |
Sign-off authorises progression to Gate 2 (or to a PoC first). Note any conditions.
| Field | Entry |
|---|
| Decision | Proceed to Gate 2 / Proceed via PoC first / Park / Reject |
| Approver | |
| Conditions / reason | |
| Date | |