Score
93. Are approval levels defined for contracts and supplements to contracts?
<--- Score
94. Is the work to date meeting requirements?
<--- Score
95. How do you manage changes in Architecture design software requirements?
<--- Score
96. Will team members regularly document their Architecture design software work?
<--- Score
97. Do you all define Architecture design software in the same way?
<--- Score
98. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
99. Has your scope been defined?
<--- Score
100. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Architecture design software work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
101. How do you hand over Architecture design software context?
<--- Score
102. What would be the goal or target for a Architecture design software’s improvement team?
<--- Score
103. How often are the team meetings?
<--- Score
104. When is the estimated completion date?
<--- Score
105. Have specific policy objectives been defined?
<--- Score
106. Is scope creep really all bad news?
<--- Score
107. How have you defined all Architecture design software requirements first?
<--- Score
108. Are audit criteria, scope, frequency and methods defined?
<--- Score
109. Has a Architecture design software requirement not been met?
<--- Score
110. Has the Architecture design software work been fairly and/or equitably divided and delegated among team members who are qualified and capable to perform the work? Has everyone contributed?
<--- Score
111. Is there any additional Architecture design software definition of success?
<--- Score
112. Has a high-level ‘as is’ process map been completed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
113. What are the core elements of the Architecture design software business case?
<--- Score
114. What Architecture design software requirements should be gathered?
<--- Score
115. If substitutes have been appointed, have they been briefed on the Architecture design software goals and received regular communications as to the progress to date?
<--- Score
116. Are resources adequate for the scope?
<--- Score
117. How was the ‘as is’ process map developed, reviewed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
118. How does the Architecture design software manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
119. How do you think the partners involved in Architecture design software would have defined success?
<--- Score
120. Is the Architecture design software scope complete and appropriately sized?
<--- Score
121. When is/was the Architecture design software start date?
<--- Score
122. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
123. How are consistent Architecture design software definitions important?
<--- Score
124. What scope to assess?
<--- Score
125. How will the Architecture design software team and the group measure complete success of Architecture design software?
<--- Score
126. Have the customer needs been translated into specific, measurable requirements? How?
<--- Score
127. What sort of initial information to gather?
<--- Score
128. Is there a critical path to deliver Architecture design software results?
<--- Score
129. Have all basic functions of Architecture design software been defined?
<--- Score
130. Do you have a Architecture design software success story or case study ready to tell and share?
<--- Score
131. How did the Architecture design software manager receive input to the development of a Architecture design software improvement plan and the estimated completion dates/times of each activity?
<--- Score
132. How do you keep key subject matter experts in the loop?
<--- Score
133. Has/have the customer(s) been identified?
<--- Score
134. How would you define the culture at your organization, how susceptible is
