What is the context?
<--- Score
13. Who defines (or who defined) the rules and roles?
<--- Score
14. What specifically is the problem? Where does it occur? When does it occur? What is its extent?
<--- Score
15. What are the requirements for audit information?
<--- Score
16. Is there a critical path to deliver Message Queuing as a Service results?
<--- Score
17. How do you gather the stories?
<--- Score
18. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Message Queuing as a Service work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
19. What system do you use for gathering Message Queuing as a Service information?
<--- Score
20. What scope to assess?
<--- Score
21. When are meeting minutes sent out? Who is on the distribution list?
<--- Score
22. Is the team equipped with available and reliable resources?
<--- Score
23. How do you think the partners involved in Message Queuing as a Service would have defined success?
<--- Score
24. Will team members regularly document their Message Queuing as a Service work?
<--- Score
25. What are the compelling stakeholder reasons for embarking on Message Queuing as a Service?
<--- Score
26. How have you defined all Message Queuing as a Service requirements first?
<--- Score
27. What is the scope of the Message Queuing as a Service effort?
<--- Score
28. Is Message Queuing as a Service required?
<--- Score
29. Is there any additional Message Queuing as a Service definition of success?
<--- Score
30. What baselines are required to be defined and managed?
<--- Score
31. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
32. How can the value of Message Queuing as a Service be defined?
<--- Score
33. How will variation in the actual durations of each activity be dealt with to ensure that the expected Message Queuing as a Service results are met?
<--- Score
34. What is the scope of the Message Queuing as a Service work?
<--- Score
35. Are accountability and ownership for Message Queuing as a Service clearly defined?
<--- Score
36. Are all requirements met?
<--- Score
37. How would you define the culture at your organization, how susceptible is it to Message Queuing as a Service changes?
<--- Score
38. What gets examined?
<--- Score
39. Has a team charter been developed and communicated?
<--- Score
40. What information do you gather?
<--- Score
41. How do you catch Message Queuing as a Service definition inconsistencies?
<--- Score
42. What is out of scope?
<--- Score
43. Is the scope of Message Queuing as a Service defined?
<--- Score
44. How did the Message Queuing as a Service manager receive input to the development of a Message Queuing as a Service improvement plan and the estimated completion dates/times of each activity?
<--- Score
45. What are the Message Queuing as a Service use cases?
<--- Score
46. How does the Message Queuing as a Service manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
47. What is the scope?
<--- Score
48. 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
49. The political context: who holds power?
<--- Score
50. Do you have organizational privacy requirements?
<--- Score
51. Is Message Queuing as a Service linked to key stakeholder goals and objectives?
<--- Score
52. Is there a completed, verified, and validated high-level ‘as is’ (not ‘should be’ or ‘could be’) stakeholder process map?
<--- Score
53. Who is gathering Message Queuing as a Service information?
<--- Score
54. Are the Message Queuing as a Service requirements testable?
<--- Score
55. Is
