UrbanTech Plus | Iron Law Gateway™ | Infrastructure Pre-Commitment Governance Diagnostic

Iron Law Gateway™ - UrbanTech Plus

Infrastructure Starts With A Decision

Most cost and schedule outcomes are locked in before the first contract is signed. This assessment tests whether the evidence, alternatives and governance existed before commitment was made.

Step 1

Answer the questions

16 questions across five dimensions - problem definition, outcome legitimacy, reference-class evidence, delivery capability and decision closure.

Step 2

Enter your details

Your name, organisation, role and work email. This unlocks your results and lets Shayne follow up with context specific to your project or programme.

Step 3

See your results

Your scored results appear on screen immediately. We also send a written summary identifying where governance risk entered the decision.

Questions

Decision dimensions

4 min

To complete

Answer all 16 questions

This assessment identifies where governance risk entered the decision - before it became cost, schedule or audit exposure. Your results are shown only to you and are not stored or shared beyond UrbanTech Plus.

Progress - 0 of 16

Critical Assumption Check - Answer This First

Scored separately. Not included in the 60-point total.

Most major projects have one load-bearing assumption. If it fails, the business case, scope, cost, schedule or delivery model may need to change. This question tests whether that assumption was identified and genuinely challenged before commitment was made.

Before this project was committed, was the single assumption that most of the benefits case depended on explicitly identified and independently tested?

1No critical assumption was identified before commitment. 2A critical assumption was identified but tested only internally, without independent challenge. 3The critical assumption was independently tested but project scope or strategy was not adjusted based on findings. 4The critical assumption was independently tested and project scope or strategy was formally adjusted based on findings.

Section 1 of 5 - Problem Before Solution

Before a solution was selected, was the underlying problem clearly defined and documented?

1No formal problem definition existed. 2Problem broadly described but not validated. 3Problem defined and partially validated. 4Problem clearly defined, validated and documented before solution selection.

Were at least two credible alternative solutions formally assessed?

1No alternatives assessed. 2Alternatives listed but not evaluated. 3Alternatives evaluated after a preferred option had already emerged. 4Alternatives evaluated before a preferred option was selected.

Could decision-makers clearly explain why this option was chosen over the alternatives?

1No documented rationale exists. 2Rationale exists but is incomplete or weak. 3Rationale documented and supported by evidence. 4Rationale documented, evidence-based and independently reviewed.

Section 2 of 5 - Outcome and Benefit Reality

Were measurable outcomes defined before public commitment?

1No measurable outcomes defined. 2Outcomes described but not measurable. 3Most outcomes measurable. 4All major outcomes measurable with agreed targets.

Is there a documented process for measuring whether promised benefits are actually achieved?

1No benefit measurement process exists. 2Benefits discussed but not tracked. 3Benefits tracked but accountability is unclear. 4Benefits tracked with named accountable owners and reporting requirements.

Was the project tested against alternative uses of the same funding?

1No comparison undertaken. 2Limited comparison undertaken. 3Comparative analysis completed. 4Evidence demonstrated superior outcomes per dollar invested.

Section 3 of 5 - Reference-Class Reality

How many comparable completed projects were analysed before approval?

1None. 2One or two. 3Three to five. 4More than five.

Was actual cost overrun data from comparable projects incorporated into the budget?

1No. 2Referenced but not incorporated. 3Partially incorporated. 4Formally incorporated using documented methodology.

Was actual schedule overrun data from comparable projects incorporated into the timeline?

1No. 2Acknowledged but not applied. 3Partially applied. 4Formally incorporated using documented methodology.

Section 4 of 5 - Delivery and Market Reality

Q10

Has market capacity been formally tested?

1No market testing undertaken. 2Informal discussions only. 3Formal market engagement undertaken. 4Capacity confirmed through documented market testing.

Q11

Have competing projects seeking the same labour, materials and contractors been assessed?

1No assessment undertaken. 2Identified but not analysed. 3Analysed but only partially reflected in assumptions. 4Fully incorporated into cost and schedule assumptions.

Q12

Has delivery capability been independently reviewed?

1No independent review. 2Review undertaken by parties connected to the project. 3Independent review completed. 4Independent review completed and findings incorporated.

Section 5 of 5 - Decision Closure

Q13

If major evidence emerged tomorrow showing key assumptions were wrong, could the project realistically be paused, redesigned or cancelled?

1No realistic mechanism exists. 2Technically possible but politically unlikely. 3Possible through formal governance processes. 4Clearly defined and practical process exists.

Q14

Were public commitments made before major uncertainties were resolved?

1Major commitments made before evidence existed. 2Significant uncertainties remained unresolved. 3Most uncertainties understood. 4Commitment occurred after major uncertainties were addressed.

Q15

Knowing what is known today, would decision-makers still approve the project?

1Definitely not. 2Probably not. 3Probably yes. 4Definitely yes.

Please answer all 16 questions before submitting.

16 of 16 complete - Your results are ready

Enter your details to view your results. We will also send a copy to Shayne so he can follow up with context specific to your project or programme.

First name

Last name

Organisation

Role

Work email

Please complete all fields before viewing your results.

Results display immediately. Your details are sent to UrbanTech Plus only - not stored or shared beyond that.

Your Iron Law Gateway Results

Critical Assumption Check - scored separately

0 / 4

Critical Assumption Alert

The single assumption most critical to this project's benefits case was not independently tested before commitment. If that assumption is wrong, the business case, scope, budget and schedule may all require reassessment. This is among the most reliable early indicators of major project failure.

0 / 60

Gateway Alert - Immediate Review Recommended

One or more critical Decision Closure indicators scored at the lowest level. This project displays characteristics associated with commitment preceding understanding. Independent review is recommended before any further commitment is made.

Each section is scored out of 12

The issue showing up most clearly may not be the only area affected. The same decision weakness can often influence more than one problem area. Understanding what this means in your operating context requires interpretation.

Interpret These Results With Shayne

Prefer to call? Reach Shayne directly on 0411 261 161.