Gate Review Process - GOV.UK
0Gate ReviewProcessGate 1 Review: Business JustificationVersion: V1.012 3 4 5
ContentsIntroduction to the Gate Review Process 4Why Getting Programmes and Projects Right Matters 4The Gate Review Process 5The Gate Review Process as part of the Assurance Framework 5Tailoring the Gate Review 6Using the Gate Review Workbooks 7Gate 1 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook 9Business Justification 11Purpose of the Gate 1 Review 12Assessment of the Proposed Solution 13Core Questions and Evidence 14Infrastructure Specific Questions and Evidence 36Transformation Specific Questions and Evidence 38Defence Specific Questions and Evidence 43Digital/ICT Specific Questions and Evidence 44Project Documentation 44Supporting Guidance 47
Gate Review ProcessIntroduction to theGate Review ProcessWhy Getting Programmes and Projects Right MattersGood management and control of programmes and projects is essential to the successfuldelivery of government objectives and protecting value for money. The Infrastructure andProjects Authority’s (IPA) Gate Review process is designed to provide a realistic view on aprogramme and project’s ability to deliver agreed outcomes to: time; cost; benefits; and quality.4 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification
Gate Review ProcessThe Gate Review ProcessThe Gate Review process gives independent guidance to Senior Responsible Owners (SROs),programme and project teams and to the departments who commission their work, on how bestto ensure that their programmes and projects are successful. For programmes and projectson the Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) review outcomes will be shared with theAccounting Officers (AOs), HM Treasury (HMT) and Cabinet Office (CO) Leadership to furthersupport successful delivery.This process is anchored to the Five Case Business Case Model and looks to examineprogrammes and projects at key decision points in their lifecycle to provide assurancethat they can progress successfully to the next stage. Refer to the Government’s ProjectDelivery Functional Standards for more information on the project delivery lifecycle and keydecision points.SROs and AOs should be aware of the extent and limitations of the various review processes– for example, the fact that a Gate Review has taken place does not replace the need fora full audit opinion on the effectiveness of risk management, control and governance inthe audited area.The Gate Review Process as part of the Assurance FrameworkEvery public sector body will have its own structures and resources for carrying out internalreviews, health checks and audits of their activities, including programmes and projects. TheGate Review process provides a snapshot view of progress at a point in time and, therefore,should be seen as complementary to these internal processes, and not a replacement for them.Organisations should have in place an effective framework to provide a suitable level ofassurance for their portfolio of programmes and projects. This requires management to maptheir assurance needs in an Integrated Assurance and Approvals Plan (IAAP) and identify thepotential sources for providing them. Public sector bodies are encouraged to ensure adequateand timely coordination and sharing of information, including plans, between the variousinternal review functions.Further, none of these review processes is a substitute for a rigorous governance frameworkin the organisation to manage key processes including business planning, investmentappraisal and business case management (including benefits management), programme andproject portfolio management, risk management, procurement/acquisition, and service andcontract management.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 5
Gate Review ProcessTailoring the Gate ReviewThe Gate Review Workbooks are published by the UK Government and provide guidance on: The structure of each Gate Review; The areas of investigation to be addressed by the Review Team; and Examples of the evidence which would demonstrate to the Review Team the satisfactorynature of responses to the various topics.These topics and the examples of evidence should be regarded as indicative and notprescriptive. The Review Team should consider whether additional or different topics need tobe addressed, and the evidence to be sought. Approaches may vary according to the contextof the programme and project. Supplementary guidance is provided for the following majorproject and programmes types: Infrastructure; Transformation; Defence; and Digital/Information and Communications Technology (ICT).6 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification
Gate Review ProcessUsing the Gate Review WorkbooksThe questions and evidence captured in this workbook align to the Five Case Business CaseModel to ensure a consistent approach is followed throughout the Gate Review Process.The Review Team should start with the core questions captured in this Gate Review Workbook,and also review the specific programme and project type questions and make any amendmentsas required to ensure the Gate Review is adapted based on the project and programme type.Care should be taken not to adopt a tick box approach, as much attention should be paid toactual progress as to the presence of products.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 7
Gate Review ProcessNet zero and climate adaptation as part of thegate review processFor the first time, the Gate Review Workbooks include tests for net zero and climateadaptation. Although these are high level and have been defined as such to cater to a widerange of project typologies, they are likely to be most applicable to infrastructure andbuilding projects.For transformation, defence and digital/ICT we would expect review questions to be tailoredand aligned with the principles and spirit of these tests namely: very early consideration of climate mitigation and adaptation, biodiversity andwider environmental targets and the incorporation of these in project definition andoption assessment,use of relevant Green Book and Supplementary Guidance,strategic alignment with departmental or sectoral strategies and plans as theybecome available, consistent estimation, measurement and reporting of GHG emissions, where applicable proportionality in the application of relevant tests.Please bear in mind this will be subject to periodic updates to reflect the latest availableGovernment and scientific guidance as well as departmental strategies and plans as theybecome available.We would greatly appreciate feedback from project teams regarding the coverage, relevanceand applicability of the tests at gateway.helpdesk@ipa.gov.uk.8 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification
Gate Review ProcessGate 1 Review: About thisGate Review WorkbookThis Gate Review Workbook supports the Gate 1Review: Business Justification. This is the firstproject gate review which investigates theStrategic Outline Case (SOC) and a proposed wayforward to confirm that the project scope is clearand achievable and the project is likely to deliverwhat is required.This Gate 1 Review checks that: Stakeholders approve the intended benefits from the project; The linkage with programme and organisational objectives are clear; The optimum balance of cost, benefits and risk has been identified; Adequate resources are in place; and Availability of funding.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 9
Gate Review Process10 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification
Gate Review ProcessBusiness JustificationThe project initiation process produces a justification for the project based on businessneeds and an assessment of the project’s likely costs and potential for success. This first Gate1 Review comes after the SOC has been prepared and before finalisation and approval by aProject Board, executive authority or similar group for authority to proceed and prior to anyrequired HMT spending approval.The Gate 1 Review focuses on the project’s business justification. It provides assurance to theProject Board that the proposed approach to meeting the business requirement has beenadequately researched and can be delivered. It also confirms that the benefits to be deliveredfrom the project have been identified at a high level, and that their achievement will be trackedusing a defined measurement approach.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 11
Gate Review ProcessPurpose of the Gate 1 ReviewThe purpose of the Gate 1 Review is to: Confirm that the project is still aligned with the objectives and deliverables of theprogramme and/or the organisational business strategy to which it contributes, ifappropriate evaluation of actions taken to implement recommendations made in anyearlier assessment of deliverability;Confirm that the SOC is robust – that is, in principle it meets the business needs, isaffordable, achievable, with an appropriate range of shortlisted options explored and likelyto achieve value for money;Ensure that there is internal and external authority, if required, and support for the project;Establish that the project is likely to deliver its business goals and that it supports widerbusiness change, where applicable;Ensure that the full scale, intended outcomes, timescales and impact of relevant externalissues have been considered;Ensure that the desired benefits have been clearly identified at a high level, together withmeasures of success and a measurement approach;Confirm that appropriate expert advice has been obtained as necessary to identify and/oranalyse potential options;Confirm that overarching and internal business and technical strategies have beentaken into account;Where appropriate, establish that the feasibility study has been completed satisfactorilyand that there is a preferred way forward, developed in dialogue with the marketwhere appropriate;Confirm that the market’s likely interest has been considered;Establish that quality plans for the project and its deliverables are in place and ensure thereare plans for the next stage;Confirm there is a clear understanding of the capabilities required to deliver the project,and a plan to build these capabilities where they do not already exist; andConfirm planning assumptions and that the Project Team can deliver the next stage.12 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification
Assessment of theProposed SolutionCore Questions and Evidence#CategoryQuestion1.1StrategicIs the projectsufficiently mature to beconsidered at Gate 1?Evidence The project should demonstrate that pilotinghas been considered and either rejectedwith rationale or built into the plan beforecommitting to a delivery approach orlong term cost.The project should demonstrate that it hasconducted a feasibility study, which hasexamined a wide enough range of optionsthat will meet the business requirement.This should include the advantages anddisadvantages for each option to determineits potential for meeting the Critical SuccessFactors. Options should be appraised andranked in accordance with principles of theTreasury Green Book and internal guidanceand provide clear analysis of whole life cost.The project should demonstrate that therehas been an evidence based assessmentin order to evaluate and select themost suitable commercial model. Thecommercial model should be signed off inthe commercial strategy and there should beevidence of regular review.The project should demonstrate thatcontract management issues havebeen considered.The Project should demonstrate that it hasconducted a feasibility study, which hasexamined a wide enough range of optionsthat will meet the business requirement.This should include the advantages anddisadvantages for each option to determineits potential for meeting the critical successfactors. Options should be appraised andranked in accordance with principles of theTreasury Green Book and internal guidanceand provide clear analysis of whole life cost.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 13
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestionEvidence 1.2StrategicHow has policy and strategicalignment, (must include across- departmental networkor system level alignment)been considered for thisprogramme/project? 14 Gate 1 Review: Business JustificationThe Project should demonstrate that ithas a benefits strategy and has identifiedthe financial and non-financial benefitsat a high level and had initial discussionwith the stakeholders to seek their views.The benefits for each economic optionshould be clear and the differencesexplained. The benefits strategy shouldbe included in the Project ExecutionDocument (PED).The project should have a Greenbookcompliant Strategic Outline Case (SOC)drafted and in the process of reviewand approval. The SOC should pay equalattention to final operational factors as itdoes to buy/build assets.Evidence of continual review of policy andstrategic alignment at a cross- departmentalnetwork and system level.Clear articulation and evidence of howthe project links to priority outcomes at adepartment and government level, as set outin the Public Value Framework and agreedthrough Outcome Delivery Plan.Use of the Project Outcome Profile todemonstrate the link between crossgovernment priorities, department prioritiesand project priorities and outcomes.Assessment against the list of widergovernment objectives, standards andbusiness change programmes.Assessment against the list of currentorganisational strategy and businessobjectives and policy initiatives;confirmation of the role of this project in awider programme or policy initiative.Assessment of business justification asstated in the SOC. There is a consensusamongst key project stakeholders in relationto the project vision.
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.3StrategicIs there a clear and agreedunderstanding of businessgoals and how the projectwill deliver these? Is there aclear narrative as to how theoutcomes fit into the widerorganisation thinking and hasthis been approved by keystakeholders?Evidence Business objectives for the project areclearly stated, Specific, Measurable, Agreed,Realistic and Timely (SMART), and meet thebusiness needs of the organisation.Each main objective has defined criticalsuccess factors.A strategy for achieving business benefitsdefined and agreed with stakeholders.Total scope, including timescales, expressedas a range and identifying expected phasesof delivery, are documented and agreed withstakeholders (including end-users or theirrepresentatives) and technical authorities.Scope and requirements specifications arerealistic, clear and unambiguous.Delivery approach and mechanisms definedand agreed with stakeholders.For IT-enabled projects: IT developmentsdefined as component(s) of widerprogramme of business change/newservices to the citizen.A longlist of options has been reviewedand there is clear justification for theshortlisted selection.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 15
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.4StrategicIs the project compliant anddoes it contribute to thesuccessful implementationof The Climate ChangeAct 2008 (2050 TargetAmendment) Order 2019(hereafter The ClimateChange Act 2008 as amended)and other subsequentand relevant legislation,regulations, strategies and orplans/roadmaps?Evidence Evidence that the project is part of anoverarching Net Zero strategy and alignedwith defined pathways.Evidence that the principles and policies ofthe 25 YEP and sustainability as defined bythe 1987 UN Commission “meeting the needsof the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet theirown needs” have been incorporated bothin the definition and consideration of thestrategic options availableEvidence that the project is compliant withand contributes to the Climate Change Act2008 as amended and other subsequentand relevant legislation, regulation, strategyand or plan/roadmap such as the BEISNet Zero Strategy. For projects with longlifespans such as infrastructure and buildingprojects basic compliance principles to befollowed are: 16 Gate 1 Review: Business Justificationproject should not imply a breach infuture budgets/targets,consider the “touch-it-once” principle –generally easier and more cost-effectiveto build infrastructure that is zeroemission (or low-emission) by design,rather than to retrofit later,prioritise use of low-carbonmaterials and energy,take into account a range of futurebehaviour patterns, includinglow‑carbon behaviours.Evidence that climate mitigation(understood as reducing the direct andindirect greenhouse gas emissions impactof climate change) has been incorporated.Projects are expected to provide evidencethat they are part of an overarchingdepartmental or sector specific net zerostrategy and plan and aligned with thelegally binding net zero target and legislatedCarbon Budgets.Evidence that the HM Treasury Green Bookand anyrelevant Supplementary Green BookGuidance, such as Accounting for the effectsof climate change, Valuation of energyuse and greenhouse gas emissions forappraisal, Valuing infrastructure spend hasbeen applied.
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.5StrategicIs the project compliantwith and does it contributeto climate resilience of thepopulations and systems it ispart of or it affects?Evidence Evidence that climate adaptation(understood as reducing the vulnerabilityand exposure to climate change) has beenincorporated. Projects are expected to usethe most recent UK Climate Change RiskAssessment (CCRA) to identify key climaterisks that are relevant for the project.Projects should also ensure that, where theirparent organisation has a specific climatechange and adaptation plan, the projecttakes these into consideration early on(e.g. Network Rail Route Weather Resilienceand Climate Change Adaptation Plan). Forlarger/national infrastructure projects theuse of the UK CCRA might not be sufficientand a more bespoke assessment earlyin the project definition stage shouldbe considered. Where relevant projectsare expected to include in their climateresilience plans the Environment Agency’sclimate change allowances for flood risk.Evidence that the HM Treasury Green Bookand any relevant Supplementary GreenBook Guidance, such as Accounting forthe effects of climate change, Valuation ofenergy use and greenhouse gas emissionsfor appraisal, Valuing infrastructure spendhas been applied.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 17
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.6StrategicIs the project compliant anddoes it contribute to thesuccessful implementation ofThe 25 Year Environmental Plan(25 YEP) and other subsequentand relevant legislation,regulations, strategies and orplans/roadmaps?Evidence Evidence that the principles and high levelgoals and outcomes of the 25 YEP have beenconsidered, incorporated and an impactassessment has been carried out, whererelevant. To understand whether the projectis likely to have an impact on natural capitalthat would require further assessment,consider whether the answer to one or moreof the questions below is “yes” or “maybe”.Is the project likely to affect directly orindirectly: 1.7StrategicHas the project consideredhow it will contributeto the United NationsSustainability Goals (SDGs) anddepartmental targets? 18 Gate 1 Review: Business Justificationthe use or management of land,or landscape?the atmosphere, including air quality,GHG emissions, noise levels ortranquillity?an inland, coastal or marine water body?wildlife and/or wild vegetation, which areindicators of biodiversity?the supply of natural raw materials,renewable and non-renewable, or thenatural environment from which theyare extracted?opportunities for recreation in thenatural environment, including inurban areas?Evidence that sustainability as defined bythe 1987 UN Commission “meeting the needsof the present without compromising theability of future generations to meet theirown needs” has been consideredEvidence that, where applicable, theproject has considered the need to deliverbiodiversity net gain as set out in legislationor policy applicable at the time and whetherthere are links to the Environmental LandManagement scheme (ELM)Evidence that the relevant UN SDGs havebeen considered (at Goal, Target or Indicatorlevel) and incorporated into departmentstrategic goals.Demonstration of how these goals have beenincorporated into the CSFs.Evidence that an assessment has beenmade of any potential detrimental effects ofproject activities to the SDGs.
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.8StrategicHow has the project alignedobjectives across sectors/tiers/allied organisations?Evidence Objectives must be agreed and sharedamongst the project and to wider areaswithin Government to ensure a clear view ofthe interdependencies are understood.The project should understand howthey have identified sectors/tiers/alliedorganisations that align to their objectives.Evidence that this has been agreed with keystakeholders.Where relevant, the project shoulddemonstrate: 1.9StrategicDo stakeholders support theproject and is the organisationstill fully committed? Dostakeholders supportthe shortlist? 1.10StrategicHas the feasibility studyexamined a wide enough rangeof options that will meet thebusiness requirement? Evidence of NetZero in the strategicaims of the project, the procurementstrategy and implementation, anda clear quantifiable demonstrationof the project’s contribution to theGovernment’s NetZero target.Evidence of continual review of policyand strategic alignment at a crossdepartmental network and system level.Documented involvement of, andendorsement by, stakeholders ofthe approach.Clear approach for continued consultation,involvement, support and endorsement.There is consensus amongst key projectstakeholders in relation to the project vision.There is evidence that stakeholders supportthe shortlist.The project has a high-level communicationsstrategy and plan including a compellingnarrative setting out the case for change.Options explored for collaboration withother public sector organisations andprogrammes/projects.Options have been discussed with keystakeholders.Where applicable, options have beenassessed in accordance with Regulatory orPolicy Related Impact Assessments .The advantages and disadvantages for eachoption to determine its potential for meetingthe Critical Success Factors (CSF).Market sounding indicates that suitablesolutions can be provided.Options cover project contributions tothe SDGs and other UK sustainability andenvironmental goals and commitments.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 19
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.11StrategicHas a robust short-list beenidentified from the long-liston the basis of alignment tospending objectives and CSF?Has this been endorsed by keystakeholders?Evidence 1.12StrategicDoes the organisation havethe skills and capability toundertake the selected option? 1.13StrategicHas, and will, the projectfollow the principles ofmaking benefits-focussedannouncements, and whena cost and schedule areannounced expressing themas a range that will narrowas the project progressesthrough delivery?20 Gate 1 Review: Business Justification Options appraised in accordance withprinciples of the Treasury Green Book andinternal guidance.Options ranked. Examination of all optionsthat are acceptable in principle.Clear analysis of whole-life costs foreach option.Evidence of endorsement by keystakeholders.Evidence of analysis between skills andcapability required and available.Evidence of commitment to key roles andresponsibilities for the project from withinthe business within current corporatepriorities, and capacity made to enabledelivery of the project’s objectives.The project should demonstrate that it hasthe right resources with the right experienceincluding a bottom-up resource model withunderpinning assumptions that supports thedelivery of the plan.The Project should demonstrate evidence ofrobust resource estimation and planning andresource allocation to ensure delivery of theproject objectives.Evidence that the Project InitiationRoutemap has been considered.The benefits strategy details the principlesof benefit focused announcements, tiedinto the phases of delivery. When cost andschedule are announced they should beexpressed as a range that will narrow as theproject progresses through delivery.Ministers are actively encouraged to makebenefits focused announcements ratherthan cost based ones.
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.14StrategicHas the project embeddedthe National InfrastructureCommission (NIC) fourrecommended designprinciples? 1.151.16StrategicStrategicEvidence The project has embedded the fourrecommended design principles as setout by the NIC.Carbon emissionsmitigation and adaptationto climate change;People-basedoutcomes andcommunity engagement;Local identityand improvingenvironment; andThe realisation ofeconomic, environmentaland social benefits tothe populationWhat long term impactwill the project have onthe UK economy includingopportunities to maximise thescheme’s benefits by joiningup different sectors and tiersof government (e.g. transportand housing)?Does the project have aGreenbook Compliant SOC? The benefits strategy must detail the widerand long term impact the project will have onthe wider UK economy and a benefits mapwhich details how the project will impactwider areas of government included in thebenefits strategy.Evidence of a comprehensive benefitsrealisation plan.The project should have a Greenbookcompliant SOC drafted and in the processof review and approval. The businesscase should pay equal attention to finaloperational factors as it does to buy/build assets.The SOC should be produced followingHMT guidance.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 21
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion1.17StrategicDoes the list of identified risks,constraints and dependenciesinclude climate mitigation,adaptation, sustainability,environmental and systemicconsiderations, if applicable?Evidence Projects are expected to consider climatechange in terms of: uncertainty, thresholdsor tipping points, long-term time horizons,interdependencies, early interventions, lockin/flexibility.Evidence that the project has consideredthe implications of these considerations,including in terms of legal and planningconsent matters, if applicable. Projectsshould bear in mind that current nationalplanning policies for infrastructure differin the extent to which climate impactsare covered: 22 Gate 1 Review: Business JustificationEnvironmental Impact Assessmentregulations – evaluation of theinfrastructure’s vulnerability to climatechange for new major infrastructureand may require support fromstatutory consulteesNational Policy Statements – climatechange actively considered for majornew energy, transport, waste water andwater projectsNational Planning Policy Framework &Planning Guidance – for smaller projects,only considers flood risksEvidence that the systemic andinterdependent nature of net zero anddecarbonisation pathways has beenconsidered and implications understood.Projects are expected to identify and assesswhat other projects or decarbonisationpathways they depend on or enablewithin their organisation or widerGovernment portfolio.Evidence that any relevant SupplementaryGreen Book Guidance, such as Accountingfor the Effects of Climate Change, has beenfollowed in the appraisal of options.
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion2.1EconomicHave the Net Present Valuesbeen calculated for the shortlisted options on the basis ofpreliminary analysis of theircosts and benefits, includingoptimism bias for uncertainty?Evidence 2.2EconomicHave the benefits andoutcomes identified in thestrategic case been capturedas part of the economicappraisal (either monetised ornon-monetised)? Sensitivity analysis of all appropriate optionson key variables e.g. volumetrics, channelshift detailed in the business case.Major sensitivities included in therisk register.Interviewees can explain how the project hasapproached option appraisal with an openmind (rather than retrofitting the analysis topick the already preferred option).The project should demonstrate a broadrange of business case options at this stage,showing the relative benefits, disbenefits,costs, risks and opportunities of each. Theaffordability of each option should alsobe considered.Evidence that the main economic, social,environmental and climate benefits (anddisbenefits, where applicable) have beenidentified.Evidence that any relevant SupplementaryGreen Book Guidance, such as Accountingfor the Effects of Climate Change, has beenfollowed in the appraisal of options.The project should demonstrate what longterm impact it will have on the UK economyincluding opportunities to maximise thescheme’s benefits by joining up differentsectors and tiers of government (e.g.transport and housing).The Project should demonstrate themacroeconomic factors that couldimpact the ability of government andthe supply chain to deliver the projecteffectively. A clear benefits map shouldinclude the macroeconomic factors andpotential impacts.Gate 1 Review: Business Justification 23
Gate Review Process#CategoryQuestion2.3EconomicHave the main economic,social, environmentaland climate benefits (anddisbenefits, where applicable)been identified?Evidence 24 Gate 1 Review: Business JustificationEvidence that any relevant SupplementaryGreen Book Guidance, such as Accountingfor the effects of climate change, Valuationof energy use and greenhouse gas emissionsfor appraisal, Valuing infrastructure spendhas been followed in the appraisal of options.As a minimum, it would be expected that theassessment of options is undertaken undera 2 C and 4 C climate scenario and systemicrisks are considered.Evidence that all possible optionsincluding: “no-regret/low regret options”(e.g. development control; reducing leakage;flood/heat resilient construction), “win‑winoptions” (e.g. improving preparedness,low energy solutions, support biodiversityobjec
The Gate Review Process as part of the Assurance Framework 5 Tailoring the Gate Review 6 Using the Gate Review Workbooks 7. Gate 1 Review: About this Gate Review Workbook 9. Business Justification 11 Purpose of the Gate 1 Review 12. Assessment of
NOTE: In a DUAL GATE INSTALLATION the gate opener on the same side of the driveway as the control box is known as the MASTER GATE OPENER and that gate is refered to as the MASTER GATE. Conversly the gate opener on the other gate is refered to as the SLAVE GATE OPENER and the gate is refered to as the SLAVE GATE. For Mighty Mule FM702, GTO/PRO .
BENCH SEAT SEAT SEAT SEAT TPTP TP TP TP TP SEP TP TP TP PP PP PP TP WV WV WV WV WV WV WV SP SP P GP SEP SP SP SP SP SP SP BBQ PS GATE GATE GATE GATE GATE L B B B B B B B B B B B B B B SEAT B SEAT SEP GATE GATE GATE GATE GATE SEAT L BR. . Raised planter box for grape vine and BBQ her
Gate Drain Gate controls this. Gate can not control below that. So current can leak through there. PDSOI Gate 1V Gate controls this. No leakage path. FDSOI Gate 1V Leak Source Drain FinFET Si Gate 1V Gate Source Drain Better Electrostatics Stronger Gate Control - Lower V t for the same leakage - Shorter channel for the same V t
This GATE study material can be downloaded as PDF so that your GATE preparation is made easy and you can ace your exam. These study notes are important for GATE EC, GATE EE, GATE ME, GATE CE and GATE CS. They are also important for IES, BARC, BSNL, DRDO and the rest. Before you get sta
the unit size output resistance, the unit size gate area capacitance and the gate perimeter capacitance of gate i , respectively. Although the gate shown here is a two-input AND gate, the model can be easily generalized for any gate with any number of input pins. Fig. 4. The model of component i , which is a wire segment, by a -type RC circuit.
v e n r i n f n t r overlook t e r a c e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e r k t s ki n z e y a p p l e t o ts s c h f i e l d r d z r g u e l l o b l v d n a broadway gate (pedestrian only) lombard gate presidio gate arguello gate 25th ave. gate 15th 14th ave. gates marina gate chestnut gate (pedestrian only) dt public health service .
MOSFET Logic Revised: March 22, 2020 ECE2274 Pre-Lab for MOSFET logic LTspice NAND Logic Gate, NOR Logic Gate, and CMOS Inverter Include CRN # and schematics. 1. NMOS NMOSNAND Logic Gate Use Vdd 10Vdc. For the NMOS NAND LOGIC GATE shown below, use the 2N7000 MOSFET LTspice model that has a gate to source voltage Vgs threshold of 2V (Vto 2.0).File Size: 586KB
RUMINANT ANIMAL NUTRITION ANN 503 BY Prof. C. F. I. Onwuka Dr. O.A.Isah *Dr. A.O. Oni Dr(Mrs) R.Y. Aderinboye *Course coordinator. COURSE OUTLINE Course introduction , preview and expectation The Nature of ruminant Stomach Physiology, microbiology and biochemistry of rumen Utilization of roughages in ruminant feeding The use of agro industrial by-products in ruminant feeding Importance and .
