Читать книгу Architecture Design Software A Complete Guide - 2020 Edition - Gerardus Blokdyk - Страница 8
ОглавлениеCRITERION #2: DEFINE:
INTENT: Formulate the stakeholder problem. Define the problem, needs and objectives.
In my belief, the answer to this question is clearly defined:
5 Strongly Agree
4 Agree
3 Neutral
2 Disagree
1 Strongly Disagree
1. Who defines (or who defined) the rules and roles?
<--- Score
2. Why are you doing Architecture design software and what is the scope?
<--- Score
3. How do you manage unclear Architecture design software requirements?
<--- Score
4. How do you gather requirements?
<--- Score
5. What is the worst case scenario?
<--- Score
6. Has a team charter been developed and communicated?
<--- Score
7. The political context: who holds power?
<--- Score
8. 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
9. Is Architecture design software linked to key stakeholder goals and objectives?
<--- Score
10. Are there different segments of customers?
<--- Score
11. What is out-of-scope initially?
<--- Score
12. What are the record-keeping requirements of Architecture design software activities?
<--- Score
13. How will variation in the actual durations of each activity be dealt with to ensure that the expected Architecture design software results are met?
<--- Score
14. What customer feedback methods were used to solicit their input?
<--- Score
15. Is Architecture design software currently on schedule according to the plan?
<--- Score
16. Are all requirements met?
<--- Score
17. 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
18. How do you gather Architecture design software requirements?
<--- Score
19. Are required metrics defined, what are they?
<--- Score
20. Is there a clear Architecture design software case definition?
<--- Score
21. What specifically is the problem? Where does it occur? When does it occur? What is its extent?
<--- Score
22. What gets examined?
<--- Score
23. What are (control) requirements for Architecture design software Information?
<--- Score
24. Has everyone on the team, including the team leaders, been properly trained?
<--- Score
25. What system do you use for gathering Architecture design software information?
<--- Score
26. What are the tasks and definitions?
<--- Score
27. What defines best in class?
<--- Score
28. Is the current ‘as is’ process being followed? If not, what are the discrepancies?
<--- Score
29. Is Architecture design software required?
<--- Score
30. Has the improvement team collected the ‘voice of the customer’ (obtained feedback – qualitative and quantitative)?
<--- Score
31. Are the Architecture design software requirements testable?
<--- Score
32. What is the definition of Architecture design software excellence?
<--- Score
33. What are the rough order estimates on cost savings/opportunities that Architecture design software brings?
<--- Score
34. Will team members perform Architecture design software work when assigned and in a timely fashion?
<--- Score
35. Is there a completed, verified, and validated high-level ‘as is’ (not ‘should be’ or ‘could be’) stakeholder process map?
<--- Score
36. Are the Architecture design software requirements complete?
<--- Score
37. Is there a Architecture design software management charter, including stakeholder case, problem and goal statements, scope, milestones, roles and responsibilities, communication plan?
<--- Score
38. What scope do you want your strategy to cover?
<--- Score
39. Is it clearly defined in and to your organization what you do?
<--- Score
40. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
41. Is data collected and displayed to better understand customer(s) critical needs and requirements.
<--- Score
42. What are the dynamics of the communication plan?
<--- Score
43. What sources do you use to gather information for a Architecture design software study?
<--- Score
44. What is in scope?
<--- Score
45. What knowledge or experience is required?
<--- Score
46. What baselines are required to be defined and managed?
<--- Score
47. Have all of the relationships been defined properly?
<--- Score
48. Is the team equipped with available and reliable resources?
<--- Score
49. Who is gathering Architecture design software information?
<--- Score
50. What Architecture design software services do you require?
<--- Score
51. What is a worst-case scenario for losses?
<--- Score
52. What happens if Architecture design software’s scope changes?
<--- Score
53. 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
54. Is the scope of Architecture design software defined?
<--- Score
55. How do you catch Architecture design software definition inconsistencies?
<--- Score
56. When are meeting minutes sent out? Who is on the distribution list?
<--- Score
57. Do you have organizational privacy requirements?
<--- Score
58. What is in the scope and what is not in scope?
<--- Score
59. In what way can you redefine the criteria of choice clients have in your category in your favor?
<--- Score
60. What key stakeholder process output measure(s) does Architecture design software leverage and how?
<--- Score
61. How and when will the baselines be defined?
<--- Score
62. What are the Architecture design software tasks and definitions?
<--- Score
63. How is the team tracking and documenting its work?
<--- Score
64. How do you gather the stories?
<--- Score
65. Who are the Architecture design software improvement team members, including Management Leads and Coaches?
<--- Score
66. How can the value of Architecture design software be defined?
<--- Score
67. How do you build the right business case?
<--- Score
68. What is out of scope?
<--- Score
69. What is the context?
<--- Score
70. Are accountability and ownership for Architecture design software clearly defined?
<--- Score
71. Are different versions of process maps needed to account for the different types of inputs?
<--- Score
72. Will a Architecture design software production readiness review be required?
<--- Score
73. What are the compelling stakeholder reasons for embarking on Architecture design software?
<--- Score
74. What information do you gather?
<--- Score
75. What are the Roles and Responsibilities for each team member and its leadership? Where is this documented?
<--- Score
76. Does the scope remain the same?
<--- Score
77. What constraints exist that might impact the team?
<--- Score
78. What are the Architecture design software use cases?
<--- Score
79. Are customer(s) identified and segmented according to their different needs and requirements?
<--- Score
80. How would you define Architecture design software leadership?
<--- Score
81. What was the context?
<--- Score
82. Is special Architecture design software user knowledge required?
<--- Score
83. Has the direction changed at all during the course of Architecture design software? If so, when did it change and why?
<--- Score
84. What information should you gather?
<--- Score
85. Who approved the Architecture design software scope?
<--- Score
86. Has a project plan, Gantt chart, or similar been developed/completed?
<--- Score
87. Who is gathering information?
<--- Score
88. What is the scope of Architecture design software?
<--- Score
89. Do the problem and goal statements meet the SMART criteria (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound)?
<--- Score
90. Is the Architecture design software scope manageable?
<--- Score
91. What critical content must be communicated – who, what, when, where, and how?
<--- Score
92. Where can you gather more information?
<--- Score
93. Are approval levels defined for contracts and supplements to contracts?
<--- Score
94. Is the work to date meeting requirements?
<--- Score
95. How do you manage changes in Architecture design software requirements?
<--- Score
96. Will team members regularly document their Architecture design software work?
<--- Score
97. Do you all define Architecture design software in the same way?
<--- Score
98. Is there regularly 100% attendance at the team meetings? If not, have appointed substitutes attended to preserve cross-functionality and full representation?
<--- Score
99. Has your scope been defined?
<--- Score
100. Are there any constraints known that bear on the ability to perform Architecture design software work? How is the team addressing them?
<--- Score
101. How do you hand over Architecture design software context?
<--- Score
102. What would be the goal or target for a Architecture design software’s improvement team?
<--- Score
103. How often are the team meetings?
<--- Score
104. When is the estimated completion date?
<--- Score
105. Have specific policy objectives been defined?
<--- Score
106. Is scope creep really all bad news?
<--- Score
107. How have you defined all Architecture design software requirements first?
<--- Score
108. Are audit criteria, scope, frequency and methods defined?
<--- Score
109. Has a Architecture design software requirement not been met?
<--- Score
110. Has the Architecture design 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
111. Is there any additional Architecture design software definition of success?
<--- Score
112. Has a high-level ‘as is’ process map been completed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
113. What are the core elements of the Architecture design software business case?
<--- Score
114. What Architecture design software requirements should be gathered?
<--- Score
115. If substitutes have been appointed, have they been briefed on the Architecture design software goals and received regular communications as to the progress to date?
<--- Score
116. Are resources adequate for the scope?
<--- Score
117. How was the ‘as is’ process map developed, reviewed, verified and validated?
<--- Score
118. How does the Architecture design software manager ensure against scope creep?
<--- Score
119. How do you think the partners involved in Architecture design software would have defined success?
<--- Score
120. Is the Architecture design software scope complete and appropriately sized?
<--- Score
121. When is/was the Architecture design software start date?
<--- Score
122. Is there a completed SIPOC representation, describing the Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, and Customers?
<--- Score
123. How are consistent Architecture design software definitions important?
<--- Score
124. What scope to assess?
<--- Score
125. How will the Architecture design software team and the group measure complete success of Architecture design software?
<--- Score
126. Have the customer needs been translated into specific, measurable requirements? How?
<--- Score
127. What sort of initial information to gather?
<--- Score
128. Is there a critical path to deliver Architecture design software results?
<--- Score
129. Have all basic functions of Architecture design software been defined?
<--- Score
130. Do you have a Architecture design software success story or case study ready to tell and share?
<--- Score
131. How did the Architecture design software manager receive input to the development of a Architecture design software improvement plan and the estimated completion dates/times of each activity?
<--- Score
132. How do you keep key subject matter experts in the loop?
<--- Score
133. Has/have the customer(s) been identified?
<--- Score
134. How would you define the culture at your organization, how susceptible is it to Architecture design software changes?
<--- Score
135. Is the team adequately staffed with the desired cross-functionality? If not, what additional resources are available to the team?
<--- Score
136. How do you manage scope?
<--- Score
Add up total points for this section: _____ = Total points for this section
Divided by: ______ (number of statements answered) = ______ Average score for this section
Transfer your score to the Architecture design software Index at the beginning of the Self-Assessment.
