One thing that is hinted by the article but I think isn't fleshed out well enough, is that "process gates" per se aren't bad. It's the mentality that a process

One thing that is hinted by the article but I think isn't fleshed out well enough, is that "process gates" per se aren't bad. It's the mentality that a process gate is an "add and wait" thing. Like any intervention that is a "change in process", they should have clear dates and/or criteria under which such a gate either straightforwardly expires, or is at least expected to undergo review to confirm it is still needed, works as intended, and isn't causing more trouble than it is solving. This isn't just a "project manager" thing. It's a very common mentality found in most professions. Doctors, for instance, are notorious for being very eager to "start" drugs, but very reluctant to "stop" them; especially when "someone else" started it. This leads to an endless cycle of people ending up on bucketfuls of pills every day, many of which interact with each other in adverse ways, and some of which are only there to counter side-effects from drugs that could have simply been stopped a long time ago.