Score
57. What is the context?
<--- Score
58. Is scope creep really all bad news?
<--- Score
59. Has a project plan, Gantt chart, or similar been developed/completed?
<--- Score
60. Have all of the relationships been defined properly?
<--- Score
61. Are the Work-integrated learning requirements complete?
<--- Score
62. How does the Work-integrated learning manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
63. Is the current ‘as is’ process being followed? If not, what are the discrepancies?
<--- Score
64. Has a high-level ‘as is’ process map been completed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
65. How will variation in the actual durations of each activity be dealt with to ensure that the expected Work-integrated learning results are met?
<--- Score
66. Has anyone else (internal or external to the group) attempted to solve this problem or a similar one before? If so, what knowledge can be leveraged from these previous efforts?
<--- Score
67. How do you manage scope?
<--- Score
68. When is the estimated completion date?
<--- Score
69. What are the compelling stakeholder reasons for embarking on Work-integrated learning?
<--- Score
70. What are the tasks and definitions?
<--- Score
71. How would you define the culture at your organization, how susceptible is it to Work-integrated learning changes?
<--- Score
72. Is there a completed, verified, and validated high-level ‘as is’ (not ‘should be’ or ‘could be’) stakeholder process map?
<--- Score
73. Are the Work-integrated learning requirements testable?
<--- Score
74. When are meeting minutes sent out? Who is on the distribution list?
<--- Score
75. What key stakeholder process output measure(s) does Work-integrated learning leverage and how?
<--- Score
76. Do you have a Work-integrated learning success story or case study ready to tell and share?
<--- Score
77. How do you manage changes in Work-integrated learning requirements?
<--- Score
78. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
79. Is the scope of Work-integrated learning defined?
<--- Score
80. Are improvement team members fully trained on Work-integrated learning?
<--- Score
81. What baselines are required to be defined and managed?
<--- Score
82. What are the boundaries of the scope? What is in bounds and what is not? What is the start point? What is the stop point?
<--- Score
83. What defines best in class?
<--- Score
84. Has the Work-integrated learning 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
85. How and when will the baselines be defined?
<--- Score
86. Has the improvement team collected the ‘voice of the customer’ (obtained feedback – qualitative and quantitative)?
<--- Score
87. Is the Work-integrated learning scope manageable?
<--- Score
88. In what way can you redefine the criteria of choice clients have in your category in your favor?
<--- Score
89. How are consistent Work-integrated learning definitions important?
<--- Score
90. What is the scope of Work-integrated learning?
<--- Score
91. How can the value of Work-integrated learning be defined?
<--- Score
92. Do you have organizational privacy requirements?
<--- Score
93. Are all requirements met?
<--- Score
94. Are audit criteria, scope, frequency and methods defined?
<--- Score
95. What gets examined?
<--- Score
96. Has a Work-integrated learning requirement not been met?
<--- Score
97. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
98. How do you gather requirements?
<--- Score
99. How did the Work-integrated learning manager receive input to the development of a Work-integrated learning improvement plan
