How will variation in the actual durations of each activity be dealt with to ensure that the expected Government transparency results are met?
<--- Score
12. Is scope creep really all bad news?
<--- Score
13. How do you gather the stories?
<--- Score
14. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
15. Is the work to date meeting requirements?
<--- Score
16. Are different versions of process maps needed to account for the different types of inputs?
<--- Score
17. What key stakeholder process output measure(s) does Government transparency leverage and how?
<--- Score
18. What is the worst case scenario?
<--- Score
19. What are the tasks and definitions?
<--- Score
20. 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
21. Has the direction changed at all during the course of Government transparency? If so, when did it change and why?
<--- Score
22. Is there a clear Government transparency case definition?
<--- Score
23. How do you manage scope?
<--- Score
24. Are there different segments of customers?
<--- Score
25. Has your scope been defined?
<--- Score
26. Has a team charter been developed and communicated?
<--- Score
27. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Government transparency work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
28. How are consistent Government transparency definitions important?
<--- Score
29. Who is gathering Government transparency information?
<--- Score
30. Have the customer needs been translated into specific, measurable requirements? How?
<--- Score
31. Is there any additional Government transparency definition of success?
<--- Score
32. How do you gather Government transparency requirements?
<--- Score
33. Who defines (or who defined) the rules and roles?
<--- Score
34. Where can you gather more information?
<--- Score
35. How will the Government transparency team and the group measure complete success of Government transparency?
<--- Score
36. What baselines are required to be defined and managed?
<--- Score
37. Are task requirements clearly defined?
<--- Score
38. Have all basic functions of Government transparency been defined?
<--- Score
39. Is the team sponsored by a champion or stakeholder leader?
<--- Score
40. Is full participation by members in regularly held team meetings guaranteed?
<--- Score
41. Has the improvement team collected the ‘voice of the customer’ (obtained feedback – qualitative and quantitative)?
<--- Score
42. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
43. How do you manage unclear Government transparency requirements?
<--- Score
44. Are approval levels defined for contracts and supplements to contracts?
<--- Score
45. How does the Government transparency manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
46. Will team members regularly document their Government transparency work?
<--- Score
47. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
48. Are resources adequate for the scope?
<--- Score
49. What are the rough order estimates on cost savings/opportunities that Government transparency brings?
<--- Score
50. When is/was the Government transparency start date?
<--- Score
51. How do you catch Government transparency definition inconsistencies?
<--- Score
52. What Government transparency requirements should be gathered?
<--- Score
53. What sort of initial information to gather?
<--- Score
54. What are the compelling stakeholder
