Design governance: Do clearly defined design milestones and formal reviews (gate reviews) help ensure the development process remains on time and on track?

Introduction / Context:
Milestones and reviews structure product development, creating predictable checkpoints for maturity, risk burn-down, and cross-functional alignment. Whether in stage-gate or agile-hybrid contexts, well-run reviews catch issues early and align teams on scope, resources, and dates. This item tests recognition of those governance benefits.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Projects involve multiple disciplines and external dependencies.
• Milestones define entry/exit criteria (requirements freeze, prototype readiness, validation complete).
• Reviews provide evidence-based go/hold/redirect decisions.

Concept / Approach:
Milestones anchor planning; reviews enforce quality gates. Together they limit schedule slippage by surfacing constraints, enabling decisions (trade-offs, descopes), and confirming resource alignment. They work across methodologies: agile increments can map to milestone objectives (e.g., design freeze by Sprint N) and still benefit from formal reviews with stakeholders.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Programs with disciplined reviews report fewer late reworks and clearer accountability; schedule adherence improves due to earlier detection of blockers.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Benefits are not limited to waterfall, executive attendance, or daily stand-ups; what matters is rigorous criteria and follow-through.

Common Pitfalls:
Box-checking without evidence; skipping cross-functional input; unclear exit criteria; failing to track actions.

Final Answer:
Correct