Council Reform Gateway™ | Executive Assessment

Council Reform Gateway™ - Executive Assessment

Evidence Before Commitment™

This assessment tests whether sufficient evidence exists to support a responsible commitment to structural reform. Answer based on what your council has completed today, not what is planned, intended or underway.

Your Details

Full Name*

Required

Council / Organisation*

Required

Position*

Required

Years in Current Role*

Required

Work Email*

Required

Contact Number*

Required

Region*

Required

Organisation Type*

Required

Current Reform Position*

Required

How did you find this?

Consent

Required: I understand my individual responses are confidential and will not be shared beyond UrbanTech Plus without my consent.

You must accept this to proceed

Optional: I consent to my responses being included in an aggregated Executive Alignment Assessment where multiple respondents from the same organisation have completed the assessment and all participants have consented.

Optional: I consent to anonymised benchmarking and research use.

Important - Read Before Continuing

Answer based on what exists and has been completed today. Do not answer based on work that is planned, commissioned, intended, budgeted, or underway but incomplete.

I understand

You must acknowledge this to continue

Begin Assessment

Progress - 0 of 15

Section 1 of 5

Is There a Compelling Reason for Reform?

Question 1

When asked why structural reform is necessary, how would you describe the available evidence?

There is no documented rationale beyond the reform proposal itself - the problem being solved has not been formally defined.A rationale exists but it was developed after the reform option emerged - the problem definition followed the preferred solution.A documented strategic case exists and preceded the reform proposal, but it has not been independently reviewed.A documented strategic case exists, preceded the reform proposal, and has been independently reviewed and tested against the problem it claims to solve.

Please select a response

Question 2

How has the current structure been tested against the problem reform is intended to solve?

It has not been tested - the assumption is that structural reform is necessary without formal analysis of whether the current structure is the cause.The case relies on general sector narratives rather than evidence specific to this council's structure and performance.Analysis has been completed internally but has not been independently validated or stress-tested.There is documented, independently reviewed evidence that the current structure is the primary cause of the problem and that reform at this scale is the appropriate response.

Please select a response

Question 3

How were alternatives to structural reform assessed before the preferred option was identified?

No alternatives were formally assessed - structural reform was the starting position.Alternatives such as shared services or alliances were listed but not evaluated against the same evidence standard as the reform option.Alternatives were evaluated but only after a preferred structural option had already been identified.Alternatives were formally evaluated before any preferred option was identified, using the same evidence standard as the structural reform option, and the findings are documented.

Please select a response

Section 2 of 5

Could I Defend the Benefits Case?

Question 4

If the Auditor-General requested the evidence behind the claimed benefits of reform, what would you be able to provide?

The benefits have been stated but there is no documented evidence base that would withstand independent scrutiny.There is modelling but it relies on assumptions that have not been independently tested and would not survive a formal audit.There is a documented benefits case but some assumptions remain untested and the full transition cost has not been incorporated.There is a documented, independently tested benefits case including transition costs, with a realistic payback timeline that could be tabled before the Auditor-General.

Please select a response

Question 5

How are the claimed service improvements supported by evidence?

Service improvements have been asserted but there is no evidence base - no baseline performance data and no comparable reforms at this scale.Comparable reform examples have been referenced but they have not been formally analysed for scale, context or actual service outcome.There is a service performance baseline and comparable evidence has been analysed, but the findings from comparables are mixed or inconclusive.There is a validated service performance baseline across all participating entities and independently analysed comparable evidence of sustained service improvement at a similar scale and complexity.

Please select a response

Question 6

How well understood are the ratepayer impacts of reform across different communities?

Ratepayer impacts have not been modelled - the assumption is that efficiencies will benefit all communities without formal analysis.High-level impacts have been identified but cross-subsidy risk between communities has not been modelled or mitigated.Ratepayer impacts have been modelled but community-level cross-subsidy risks are identified without confirmed mitigation.Ratepayer impacts have been modelled at community level, cross-subsidy risk is understood and mitigated, and the findings could be presented and defended at a public meeting.

Please select a response

Section 3 of 5

Do We Understand What We Are Inheriting?

Question 7

How well is the combined financial position of all participating entities understood?

No combined financial modelling has been undertaken - each entity's position is understood in isolation only.High-level combined modelling exists but asset backlogs, debt obligations and long-term plan liabilities have not been fully incorporated.Combined financial modelling has been completed across all entities but has not been independently reviewed or stress-tested.A comprehensive combined financial model exists across all participating entities including asset backlogs, debt and long-term obligations, and it has been independently reviewed and stress-tested.

Please select a response

Question 8

How thoroughly have infrastructure, water, deferred maintenance and asset liabilities been assessed across all participating entities?

Asset liabilities have not been assessed across all entities - the combined exposure is unknown.Some entities have been assessed but significant gaps remain, particularly for deferred maintenance and water infrastructure.A comprehensive assessment has been completed but has not been independently validated or incorporated into the financial case.A comprehensive, independently validated assessment of all asset liabilities across every participating entity has been completed and incorporated into the combined financial model.

Please select a response

Question 9

How well understood are the technology, data and system integration risks across all participating entities?

Integration risks have not been assessed - the assumption is that systems can be harmonised without formal analysis of cost or complexity.Some systems have been identified but ERP, GIS, asset management, payroll and records integration costs have not been formally estimated.Integration costs have been estimated across major systems but the estimate has not been independently reviewed or incorporated into the savings case.Full system integration costs across all entities have been independently estimated, stress-tested and incorporated into the savings case with a realistic implementation timeline.

Please select a response

Section 4 of 5

Can We Actually Deliver It?

Question 10

How has the organisation's capacity to manage structural reform alongside current obligations been assessed?

Capacity has not been formally assessed - the assumption is that reform can be managed alongside existing operational and regulatory obligations.Capacity constraints have been acknowledged informally but concurrent pressures including water reform, planning reform and rates have not been formally factored into the reform timeline.A capacity assessment has been completed internally but specialist reform capability gaps have not been independently validated.An independent capability and capacity assessment has been completed that accounts for concurrent reform obligations, and specialist gaps are identified with a confirmed resourcing plan.

Please select a response

Question 11

How have active capital programmes been protected in the reform design?

Capital programme continuity has not been assessed - there is no formal plan for who owns delivery accountability during the transition period.The risk has been noted informally but capital programme disruption has not been quantified or included in the reform timeline.An assessment has been completed but capital programme protection has not been formally built into the reform sequencing and governance design.Active capital programmes across all entities have been assessed, delivery accountability during transition is formally assigned, and programme protection is built into the reform sequencing.

Please select a response

Question 12

How are workforce retention risks being managed during the reform process?

Workforce risks have not been formally assessed - there is no structured response to the likelihood of key staff leaving before the new entity is operational.The risk of staff departure has been acknowledged but no formal retention strategy or transition workforce plan has been developed.A workforce transition plan exists but it has not been stress-tested against the scenario where key roles become vacant before the new entity is established.Workforce retention risks have been formally assessed across all entities, key roles are identified, retention strategies are active, and the transition plan accounts for the risk of vacancy before day one.

Please select a response

Section 5 of 5

Can I Defend the Governance Process?

Question 13

Who is accountable for service delivery and decision-making during the period between reform approval and the new entity becoming operational?

This has not been defined - accountability during the transition period is assumed but not formally assigned.Accountability is informally understood among the CE group but has not been documented in a way that would survive a legal or audit challenge.Transition accountability has been documented but escalation pathways and decision authority for the period before day one have not been formally resolved.Accountability for service delivery and key decisions during the transition period is formally documented, assigned to named roles, and would withstand public, audit and legal scrutiny.

Please select a response

Question 14

How robust is the documented evidence base supporting this reform decision?

The evidence base is informal - documents exist but they would not withstand independent audit, ministerial review or legal challenge.There is a documented evidence base but significant gaps exist that would be visible under public or audit scrutiny.The evidence base is substantially complete but some assumptions remain that have not been independently tested.A comprehensive, independently reviewed evidence base exists that documents what was known, what was tested, and what the evidence supported at the time each decision was made - and it would withstand public, audit, ministerial and legal scrutiny.

Please select a response

Question 15

How have community, iwi and hapu impacts - including Treaty settlement continuity obligations - been assessed?

These have not been formally assessed - Treaty obligations and community identity impacts are acknowledged but not documented.Initial engagement has occurred but Treaty settlement continuity and community identity impacts have not been formally assessed or incorporated into the reform design.Community and iwi engagement has been completed and findings documented, but Treaty settlement continuity obligations have not been fully resolved in the reform design.Community, iwi and hapu impacts have been formally assessed, Treaty settlement continuity obligations are documented and resolved in the reform design, and the findings have materially shaped the proposal.

Please select a response

Integrity Question

How confident are you that the reform process is being governed in a way that enables objective assessment of options?

This question does not contribute to your section scores. A response of the first option caps the finding at Further Evidence Required.

I am not confident - individual leadership, political or organisational interests are materially influencing which options are being considered and how the evidence is being interpreted.There are visible pressures on the process but no formal mechanism exists to identify or manage conflicts of interest in the governance of the reform decision.The process is largely objective but some interests are influencing which options receive serious consideration without that influence being formally acknowledged.The reform process is governed in a way that formally identifies and manages conflicts of interest, and the governance structure enables genuine assessment of all options including Reform Not Indicated.

Please select a response

Submit Assessment

Your results will appear immediately. A Gateway Assessment Report will be sent to your email within two business days.

Section Scores

What happens next

Your Gateway Assessment Report will be sent to your email within two business days. It is formatted for council briefings, DIA submissions and executive alignment conversations. If it does not arrive on time, it is free.

If two or more executives from your council submit independently, Shayne will contact you to discuss the alignment findings.

Recommended Next Step

Council Reform Gateway™ is a governance assessment framework produced by UrbanTech Plus. This document reflects the respondent's own assessment of their council's evidence base. UrbanTech Plus does not advocate for or against structural reform. A finding of Reform Not Indicated is as legitimate an output as Reform Supported.
urbantechplus.com | shayne@urbantechplus.com | NZ: 04 887 8754 | AU: +61 411 261 161 | © 2026 UrbanTech Plus. All rights reserved.