all bad news?
<--- Score
56. Are there different segments of customers?
<--- Score
57. How was the ‘as is’ process map developed, reviewed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
58. How is the team tracking and documenting its work?
<--- Score
59. What is the scope of Message Queuing as a Service?
<--- Score
60. What critical content must be communicated – who, what, when, where, and how?
<--- Score
61. What is the definition of success?
<--- Score
62. What is in scope?
<--- Score
63. What sources do you use to gather information for a Message Queuing as a Service study?
<--- Score
64. What are the dynamics of the communication plan?
<--- Score
65. Is the Message Queuing as a Service scope manageable?
<--- Score
66. What would be the goal or target for a Message Queuing as a Service’s improvement team?
<--- Score
67. Is the current ‘as is’ process being followed? If not, what are the discrepancies?
<--- Score
68. What was the context?
<--- Score
69. Are approval levels defined for contracts and supplements to contracts?
<--- Score
70. What scope do you want your strategy to cover?
<--- Score
71. How would you define Message Queuing as a Service leadership?
<--- Score
72. How often are the team meetings?
<--- Score
73. Are the Message Queuing as a Service requirements complete?
<--- Score
74. If substitutes have been appointed, have they been briefed on the Message Queuing as a Service goals and received regular communications as to the progress to date?
<--- Score
75. What defines best in class?
<--- Score
76. Are task requirements clearly defined?
<--- Score
77. How will the Message Queuing as a Service team and the group measure complete success of Message Queuing as a Service?
<--- Score
78. Are required metrics defined, what are they?
<--- Score
79. Is full participation by members in regularly held team meetings guaranteed?
<--- Score
80. Are customer(s) identified and segmented according to their different needs and requirements?
<--- Score
81. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
82. Have all of the relationships been defined properly?
<--- Score
83. What Message Queuing as a Service requirements should be gathered?
<--- Score
84. 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
85. Is the work to date meeting requirements?
<--- Score
86. Has/have the customer(s) been identified?
<--- Score
87. Has a high-level ‘as is’ process map been completed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
88. What sort of initial information to gather?
<--- Score
89. Have all basic functions of Message Queuing as a Service been defined?
<--- Score
90. Who is gathering information?
<--- Score
91. Has your scope been defined?
<--- Score
92. Is Message Queuing as a Service currently on schedule according to the plan?
<--- Score
93. Do you have a Message Queuing as a Service success story or case study ready to tell and share?
<--- Score
94. What key stakeholder process output measure(s) does Message Queuing as a Service leverage and how?
<--- Score
95. Is there a clear Message Queuing as a Service case definition?
<--- Score
96. Do the problem and goal statements meet the SMART criteria (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound)?
<--- Score
97. What constraints exist that might impact the team?
<--- Score
98. Is the team adequately staffed with the desired cross-functionality? If not, what additional resources are available to the team?
<--- Score
99.
