Score
4. How sensitive is the data, and what are the necessary minimum security controls?
<--- Score
5. What are the greatest opportunities for your organization?
<--- Score
6. How will the data be checked for quality?
<--- Score
7. Is the Risk transfer process severely broken such that a re-design is necessary?
<--- Score
8. Does your investment process allow short-selling?
<--- Score
9. How was the detailed process map generated, verified, and validated?
<--- Score
10. Can the data and service be easily moved to another provider?
<--- Score
11. Were any designed experiments used to generate additional insight into the data analysis?
<--- Score
12. What Risk transfer data should be managed?
<--- Score
13. Who should be involved in the evaluation process, and who makes the decisions?
<--- Score
14. Were Pareto charts (or similar) used to portray the ‘heavy hitters’ (or key sources of variation)?
<--- Score
15. What quality tools were used to get through the analyze phase?
<--- Score
16. Are gaps between current performance and the goal performance identified?
<--- Score
17. What are the revised rough estimates of the financial savings/opportunity for Risk transfer improvements?
<--- Score
18. What quality control measures will be used when entering data?
<--- Score
19. Do you believe that acceptance of data sharing will increase overall?
<--- Score
20. Where are you seeing growth opportunities for captives today?
<--- Score
21. What did the team gain from developing a sub-process map?
<--- Score
22. What are the processes for audit reporting and management?
<--- Score
23. Which data needs to be collected to implement the mentioned approaches?
<--- Score
24. Did any additional data need to be collected?
<--- Score
25. What tools were used to generate the list of possible causes?
<--- Score
26. How is the confidentiality, integrity and availability of data maintained?
<--- Score
27. What is the cost of poor quality as supported by the team’s analysis?
<--- Score
28. How does your organization identify opportunities for innovation?
<--- Score
29. When should a process be art not science?
<--- Score
30. Was a cause-and-effect diagram used to explore the different types of causes (or sources of variation)?
<--- Score
31. Are internal controls inadequate in your organizations data processing area?
<--- Score
32. Was a detailed process map created to amplify critical steps of the ‘as is’ stakeholder process?
<--- Score
33. What systems/processes must you excel at?
<--- Score
34. Where will multiple data backups be stored?
<--- Score
35. What Risk transfer data will be collected?
<--- Score
36. How will data security be managed?
<--- Score
37. Were there any improvement opportunities identified from the process analysis?
<--- Score
38. Did any value-added analysis or ‘lean thinking’ take place to identify some of the gaps shown on the ‘as is’ process map?
<--- Score
39. Why does the new data contradict the old data?
<--- Score
40. Who will facilitate the team and process?
<--- Score
41. What types of opportunities and what level of risk require a formal response strategy?
<--- Score
42. What were the crucial ‘moments of truth’ on the process map?
<--- Score
43. What conclusions were drawn from the team’s data collection and analysis? How did the team reach these conclusions?
<--- Score
44. Is the gap/opportunity displayed and communicated in financial terms?
<--- Score
45. Is there a solution that can address the main concerns of all key stakeholders in the process?
<--- Score
46. What does the data say about the performance of the stakeholder process?
<--- Score
47.
