Читать книгу Message Queuing As A Service 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. When is/was the Message Queuing as a Service start date?
<--- Score
2. Are resources adequate for the scope?
<--- Score
3. Has a project plan, Gantt chart, or similar been developed/completed?
<--- Score
4. Has a Message Queuing as a Service requirement not been met?
<--- Score
5. When is the estimated completion date?
<--- Score
6. What is the worst case scenario?
<--- Score
7. What information should you gather?
<--- Score
8. What are the Roles and Responsibilities for each team member and its leadership? Where is this documented?
<--- Score
9. Scope of sensitive information?
<--- Score
10. What is a worst-case scenario for losses?
<--- Score
11. Has the improvement team collected the ‘voice of the customer’ (obtained feedback – qualitative and quantitative)?
<--- Score
12. 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 scope creep really 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. How do you manage scope?
<--- Score
100. What are the rough order estimates on cost savings/opportunities that Message Queuing as a Service brings?
<--- Score
101. How and when will the baselines be defined?
<--- Score
102. How are consistent Message Queuing as a Service definitions important?
<--- Score
103. How do you gather requirements?
<--- Score
104. In what way can you redefine the criteria of choice clients have in your category in your favor?
<--- Score
105. Has the direction changed at all during the course of Message Queuing as a Service? If so, when did it change and why?
<--- Score
106. Does the team have regular meetings?
<--- Score
107. 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
108. What are the tasks and definitions?
<--- Score
109. Is data collected and displayed to better understand customer(s) critical needs and requirements.
<--- Score
110. Have specific policy objectives been defined?
<--- Score
111. Who approved the Message Queuing as a Service scope?
<--- Score
112. What customer feedback methods were used to solicit their input?
<--- Score
113. What happens if Message Queuing as a Service’s scope changes?
<--- Score
114. What is out-of-scope initially?
<--- Score
115. How do you hand over Message Queuing as a Service context?
<--- Score
116. Are roles and responsibilities formally defined?
<--- Score
117. What Message Queuing as a Service services do you require?
<--- Score
118. Has everyone on the team, including the team leaders, been properly trained?
<--- Score
119. Is special Message Queuing as a Service user knowledge required?
<--- Score
120. Have the customer needs been translated into specific, measurable requirements? How?
<--- Score
121. Who are the Message Queuing as a Service improvement team members, including Management Leads and Coaches?
<--- Score
122. What are (control) requirements for Message Queuing as a Service Information?
<--- Score
123. How do you keep key subject matter experts in the loop?
<--- Score
124. Do you all define Message Queuing as a Service in the same way?
<--- Score
125. What are the core elements of the Message Queuing as a Service business case?
<--- Score
126. Are different versions of process maps needed to account for the different types of inputs?
<--- Score
127. What is the definition of Message Queuing as a Service excellence?
<--- Score
128. Are audit criteria, scope, frequency and methods defined?
<--- Score
129. Has the Message Queuing as a Service 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
130. Where can you gather more information?
<--- Score
131. Is there a Message Queuing as a Service management charter, including stakeholder case, problem and goal statements, scope, milestones, roles and responsibilities, communication plan?
<--- Score
132. Will a Message Queuing as a Service production readiness review be required?
<--- Score
133. How do you manage unclear Message Queuing as a Service requirements?
<--- Score
134. What are the record-keeping requirements of Message Queuing as a Service activities?
<--- Score
135. Will team members perform Message Queuing as a Service work when assigned and in a timely fashion?
<--- Score
136. Does the scope remain the same?
<--- Score
137. How do you manage changes in Message Queuing as a Service requirements?
<--- 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 Message Queuing as a Service Index at the beginning of the Self-Assessment.
