What intelligence can you gather?
<--- Score
28. Are task requirements clearly defined?
<--- Score
29. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
30. What scope do you want your strategy to cover?
<--- Score
31. Did the trainee acquire the required capability, knowledge, skill or competency?
<--- Score
32. How do you think the partners involved in Training Evaluation would have defined success?
<--- Score
33. Has the direction changed at all during the course of Training Evaluation? If so, when did it change and why?
<--- Score
34. Will team members perform Training Evaluation work when assigned and in a timely fashion?
<--- Score
35. Is the team sponsored by a champion or stakeholder leader?
<--- Score
36. Is the team formed and are team leaders (Coaches and Management Leads) assigned?
<--- Score
37. Is the improvement team aware of the different versions of a process: what they think it is vs. what it actually is vs. what it should be vs. what it could be?
<--- Score
38. Is there a critical path to deliver Training Evaluation results?
<--- Score
39. What are the Roles and Responsibilities for each team member and its leadership? Where is this documented?
<--- Score
40. Are the Training Evaluation requirements complete?
<--- Score
41. Are improvement team members fully trained on Training Evaluation?
<--- Score
42. What is the definition of Training Evaluation excellence?
<--- Score
43. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
44. Are stakeholder processes mapped?
<--- Score
45. What sort of initial information to gather?
<--- Score
46. Is there a completed, verified, and validated high-level ‘as is’ (not ‘should be’ or ‘could be’) stakeholder process map?
<--- Score
47. What scope to assess?
<--- Score
48. Are team charters developed?
<--- Score
49. What are the core elements of the Training Evaluation business case?
<--- Score
50. Are roles and responsibilities formally defined?
<--- Score
51. Does the scope remain the same?
<--- Score
52. Is the current ‘as is’ process being followed? If not, what are the discrepancies?
<--- Score
53. Who defines (or who defined) the rules and roles?
<--- Score
54. What is out-of-scope initially?
<--- Score
55. What is a worst-case scenario for losses?
<--- Score
56. How do you catch Training Evaluation definition inconsistencies?
<--- Score
57. What would be the goal or target for a Training Evaluation’s improvement team?
<--- Score
58. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Training Evaluation work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
59. What customer feedback methods were used to solicit their input?
<--- Score
60. What is out of scope?
<--- Score
61. Have specific policy objectives been defined?
<--- Score
62. Are required metrics defined, what are they?
<--- Score
63. Is the team equipped with available and reliable resources?
<--- Score
64. Are customer(s) identified and segmented according to their different needs and requirements?
<--- Score
65. What specifically is the problem? Where does it occur? When does it occur? What is its extent?
<--- Score
66. Are approval levels defined for contracts and supplements to contracts?
<--- Score
67. 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
68. Do the problem and goal statements meet the SMART criteria (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound)?
<--- Score
69. Have all basic functions of Training Evaluation been defined?
<--- Score
70. What are the dynamics of the communication plan?
<---
