Change Log: Source Coding221
3.4 Decision Log: Source Coding223
3.5 Quality Audit: Source Coding225
3.6 Team Directory: Source Coding228
3.7 Team Operating Agreement: Source Coding230
3.8 Team Performance Assessment: Source Coding232
3.9 Team Member Performance Assessment: Source Coding234
3.10 Issue Log: Source Coding236
4.0 Monitoring and Controlling Process Group: Source Coding238
4.1 Project Performance Report: Source Coding240
4.2 Variance Analysis: Source Coding242
4.3 Earned Value Status: Source Coding244
4.4 Risk Audit: Source Coding246
4.5 Contractor Status Report: Source Coding248
4.6 Formal Acceptance: Source Coding250
5.0 Closing Process Group: Source Coding252
5.1 Procurement Audit: Source Coding254
5.2 Contract Close-Out: Source Coding256
5.3 Project or Phase Close-Out: Source Coding258
5.4 Lessons Learned: Source Coding260
Index262
CRITERION #1: RECOGNIZE
INTENT: Be aware of the need for change. Recognize that there is an unfavorable variation, problem or symptom.
In my belief, the answer to this question is clearly defined:
5 Strongly Agree
4 Agree
3 Neutral
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
1. Are there any revenue recognition issues?
<--- Score
2. Who needs what information?
<--- Score
3. Is the need for organizational change recognized?
<--- Score
4. Are there any specific expectations or concerns about the Source coding team, Source coding itself?
<--- Score
5. What vendors make products that address the Source coding needs?
<--- Score
6. Are you dealing with any of the same issues today as yesterday? What can you do about this?
<--- Score
7. What resources or support might you need?
<--- Score
8. Are losses recognized in a timely manner?
<--- Score
9. How many trainings, in total, are needed?
<--- Score
10. Will it solve real problems?
<--- Score
11. Are there recognized Source coding problems?
<--- Score
12. What are the clients issues and concerns?
<--- Score
13. Are there Source coding problems defined?
<--- Score
14. Will a response program recognize when a crisis occurs and provide some level of response?
<--- Score
15. Are controls defined to recognize and contain problems?
<--- Score
16. Who are your key stakeholders who need to sign off?
<--- Score
17. Does the problem have ethical dimensions?
<--- Score
18. To what extent does each concerned units management team recognize Source coding as an effective investment?
<--- Score
19. What is the problem or issue?
<--- Score
20. Who needs to know about Source coding?
<--- Score
21. Are employees recognized for desired behaviors?
<--- Score
22. How do you assess your Source coding workforce capability and capacity needs, including skills, competencies, and staffing levels?
<--- Score
23. Do you need different information or graphics?
<--- Score
24. Which needs are not included or involved?
<--- Score
25. Who needs to know?
<--- Score
26. Think about the people you identified for your Source coding project and the project responsibilities you would assign to them, what kind of training do you think they would need to perform these responsibilities effectively?
<--- Score
27. How much are sponsors, customers, partners, stakeholders involved in Source coding? In other words, what are the risks, if Source coding does not deliver successfully?
<--- Score
28. Do you recognize Source coding achievements?
<--- Score
29. Is it clear when you think of the day ahead of you what activities and tasks you need to complete?
<--- Score
30. Have you identified your Source coding key performance indicators?
<--- Score
31.
