changed at all during the course of Vendor Management Software? If so, when did it change and why?
<--- Score
97. How was the ‘as is’ process map developed, reviewed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
98. What is the scope of the Vendor Management Software work?
<--- Score
99. Are task requirements clearly defined?
<--- Score
100. Where can you gather more information?
<--- Score
101. What is the scope?
<--- Score
102. Who approved the Vendor Management Software scope?
<--- Score
103. Do you all define Vendor Management Software in the same way?
<--- Score
104. Why are you doing Vendor Management Software and what is the scope?
<--- Score
105. What are the Vendor Management Software use cases?
<--- Score
106. Has a team charter been developed and communicated?
<--- Score
107. What defines best in class?
<--- Score
108. What is the scope of the Vendor Management Software effort?
<--- Score
109. Who are the Vendor Management Software improvement team members, including Management Leads and Coaches?
<--- Score
110. Is the current ‘as is’ process being followed? If not, what are the discrepancies?
<--- Score
111. How does the Vendor Management Software manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
112. How and when will the baselines be defined?
<--- Score
113. What is out of scope?
<--- Score
114. Is there a clear Vendor Management Software case definition?
<--- Score
115. Will a Vendor Management Software production readiness review be required?
<--- Score
116. How did the Vendor Management Software manager receive input to the development of a Vendor Management Software improvement plan and the estimated completion dates/times of each activity?
<--- Score
117. What would be the goal or target for a Vendor Management Software’s improvement team?
<--- Score
118. Has the Vendor Management 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
119. Is there a completed, verified, and validated high-level ‘as is’ (not ‘should be’ or ‘could be’) stakeholder process map?
<--- Score
120. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Vendor Management Software work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
121. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
122. How do you manage changes in Vendor Management Software requirements?
<--- Score
123. What is the context?
<--- Score
124. Are the Vendor Management Software requirements testable?
<--- Score
125. How would you define the culture at your organization, how susceptible is it to Vendor Management Software changes?
<--- Score
126. What baselines are required to be defined and managed?
<--- Score
127. Have the customer needs been translated into specific, measurable requirements? How?
<--- Score
128. Are accountability and ownership for Vendor Management Software clearly defined?
<--- Score
129. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
130. What knowledge or experience is required?
<--- Score
131. Have all of the relationships been defined properly?
<--- Score
132. Do you have a Vendor Management Software success story or case study ready to tell and share?
<--- Score
133. 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
134. Is the team adequately staffed with the desired cross-functionality? If not, what additional resources are available to the team?
<--- Score
135. Are the Vendor Management Software requirements complete?
<--- Score
136. The political context: who holds power?
<--- Score
137. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
