ARCHIVED - Enhanced Framework Questionnaire

This page has been archived.

An Enhanced Framework for the Management of Information Technology Projects

Enhanced Framework Questionnaire

June 22, 2001
Chief Information Officer Branch
Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat

Project Evaluation Against Enhanced Framework for the Management of IT Projects

Business Directions

Framework Element	Yes	No	Comment/Explanation
1. Principle: Information technology projects are aligned with, and support, business directions and priorities
1.1. Is the project consistent and compatible with the department's mission, goals and priorities as described in the annual Business Plan?
1.2. Is the project consistent and compatible with ongoing or planned re-engineering initiatives designed to change fundamental business processes?
1.3. Is the project consistent with the department's Long Term Capital Plan?
1.4. Is the project consistent with the department's Information Management Plan?
1.5. Is the project consistent and compatible with the department's information and technology direction, strategies, architectures and infrastructures?
1.6. Is the project consistent and compatible with government-wide strategies for the delivery of services as described in the TBS Blueprint for Renewing Government Services Using Information Technology?
1.7. Does the project conform with approved common information technology standards, infrastructures and architectures , e.g. the public key infrastructure and infrastructure elements provided by the Government Technology and Information Service?
1.8. Is approval for the project based on a business-case analysis that relates the investment directly to the business function and demonstrates the benefits of the investment to the department or government as a whole?
1.9. Is the business case based on the full cost of the system from initiation through development, implementation and the estimated annual cost of operation?
1.10. Will the business case be reviewed and revalidated at each scheduled gate and whenever there is a significant change to the project or the business function?
1.11. If the business-case changes, does the project need to be re-approved by the department?
1.12. Has the project manager ensured that all types of clients are represented in the project so that each client group can influence requirements definition, system design and implementation?
1.13. Have clients been given a clear picture of what the system will do for them and how it will interact with them while there is opportunity to recommend improvements?
1.14. Will clients formally sign off on the reviews at the project's gates and be involved in decisions on the project's future?
1.15. Has the project leader ensured that representatives of client groups have formally committed to the level of effort required to meet their defined responsibilities?
1.16. Have client names and explicit responsibilities have been included in the project charter?
1.17. Are clients seen as full team members who take part in all requirements definition, design and implementation decisions of the project, rather than as people to bounce ideas off or to "approve" decisions of the project team?
1.18. Are clients are involved in the decision to release funds and continue the project at project gate reviews?

Accountabilities

Framework Element	Yes	No	Comment/Explanation
2. Principle: Clear accountabilities are established
2.1. Are overall departmental accountabilities for the project defined in a Project Charter?
2.2. Is senior management of the department taking an active role in overseeing and monitoring the project?
2.3. Is there a project sponsor responsible for ensuring that the department understands the value and importance of the project and, ultimately, for realizing the benefits predicted for the project? (The project sponsor is typically a senior official in the organization responsible for the business function that the project will support.)
2.4. Is there a project leader who has overall responsibility for the project and is accountable for all external and internal aspects of it? (The project leader is typically a senior departmental official.)
2.5. Is there a project manager who has specific accountability for achieving all of the defined project objectives within the time and resources allocated? (The project manager performs the day to day management of the project. Without diluting the responsibility of the overall project manager, he or she may be supported by one or more deputy or assistant project managers who have similar responsibilities over specific portions or sub-projects of the overall project.)
2.6. Have the specific responsibilities and obligations of these 3 key project officials, as well as others who may share responsibility for the successful delivery of the project, been documented in a formal project charter?
2.7. Has the project manager ensured that the project team has all the necessary competencies required by the project?
2.8. Is each sub-project directly managed by a Crown deputy project manager?
2.9. Are all core project management responsibilities and functions performed by Crown management? (includes core functions associated with managing & controlling project plan, scope, time, cost, quality, risk, human resources, procurement, contract & communications)
2.10. If it has been necessary to outsource any core project management functions, are they being acquired from a supplier other than that involved in the primary development contract?
Where there are several departments involved in the delivery of a project ...
2.11. do all departments involved understand and agree with all of the other departments' objectives, roles and levels of participation?
2.12. are the above documented in memoranda of understanding or a project charter signed by senior officials of each department?
2.13. has each department established a project management structure for their part of the project?
2.14. has the designated lead department established an overall project office, separate from its project team, with an overall project sponsor, project leader and project manager staffed at a sufficiently senior level to be able to intercede at the appropriate level in the participating departments?
For projects to which another department has attached requirements such as regional economic benefits...
2.15. have both departments reached a formal concensus on the degree to which these requirements are achievable without compromising the successful completion of the project?
2.16. is there a process whereby a department can obtain relief from the imposed obligations on presentation of evidence that the obligations cannot be met without compromising the success of the project?
2.17. where the department setting the requirements has operational responsibilities in the area of the requirements, has that department committed to help meet those requirements through a memorandum of understanding?

Skills Development

Framework Element	Yes	No	Comment/Explanation
3. Principle: Project managers are developed and work within a corporate discipline
3.1. Did the department perform a preliminary assessment of the project's scope, complexity and risk before finding and assigning a project manager?
3.2. Does the assigned project manager have the knowledge, skills and experience required to manage the project's scope,size, complexity and risk profile?
3.3. Does the department use an apprenticeship program whereby beginner project managers and project managers ready to move up to a higher level obtain experience on existing projects before being appointed as project managers of new projects?
3.4. Are there other project managers in the organization with relevant knowledge, skills and experience from whom project managers can get advice and support?

Risk Management

Framework Element	Yes	No	Comment/Explanation
4. Principle: Project management decisions are based on risk management
4.1. Has an off-the-shelf product or a solution that performs similar functions and services been adapted to the department's needs rather than develop custom software?
4.2. Is the custom software development part of the overall project being delivered via a set of sub-projects each of which is less than 12 months in duration and costs less than $1 million?
4.3. Does each sub-project team involved with custom software development consist of 10 or fewer people?
4.4. Does the management approach being used ensure the co-ordination of all the individual sub-projects, ensure communication among the different sub-project teams, and address shared or horizontal issues?
4.5. Does the project have scheduled checkpoints or "gates" when it will be reviewed and where management will decide on its future,and if necessary, take appropriate corrective action?
4.6. Have only the funds needed to reach the next gate been allocated to the project?
4.7. Has the project and any related contracting been structured to avoid incurring major penalties due to the gating process?
4.8. Is the contractor required to provide complete information on project performance and progress?
4.9. Are scheduled reviews specified in the contract?
4.10. Is an option to cancel the project at scheduled gates specified in the contract?
4.11. Are the criteria upon which a project cancellation decision would be made specified in the contract?
4.12. Have contingency plans for potential problems at these gates been developed in advance?
4.13. Has a project risk assessment using either ASEC's S:PRIME or SEI's Software Risk Evaluation method been used to identify and quantify the risks?
4.14. Are plans in place to manage the known risks?
4.15. Are plans are in place to review and update the risk assessment over the course of the project either when there is significant change or at pre-defined times during a long project?
4.16. Are SEI's Team Risk Management processes, methods and tools being used to systematically manage risks in software-dependant development aspects of the project?
4.17. Has SEI's Capability Maturity Model evaluation been applied to the organization involved in system development (either Crown or Contractor or both, as applicable)?
4.18. Has project complexity been determined at the initiation of the project using Function Point Analysis (FPA)?
4.19. Is the complexity of any changes also being determined using FPA?
4.20. Has the project has been structured such that each sub-project in the project is less than 1500 function points?
4.21. Have project risks been mitigated with a project implementation strategy such as RAD or RAAD that produces results in smaller implementable pieces (i.e less than 1500 function points) - each piece designed to be completed in a relatively short time yet provide immediate benefit to the business process?
4.22. Is there a change management process in place to ensure that changes are analyzed quickly to determine their impact (risk, cost and time) and that this information is brought to the attention of the appropriate level of management as soon as possible?
4.23. Do existing contracts define the change management process and provide for third party intervention to resolve any disputes over the cost to implement changes?
4.24. Is a performance measurement tool based on the national standard, C/SPMS, being used to provide data to the (Crown) project manager on the time and money expended and on the work completed at frequent intervals?
4.25. Have PWGSC procurement officers been involved early in the project planning so as to develop a procurement process that reduces delays, and to design a procurement plan that best aligns the contracting plan with the project plan?
4.26. Are there oversight reviews by a senior steering committee planned at each gate?
4.27. Is a management and technical review by an independent party, such as the Auditor General or a private sector consultant, planned at a key checkpoint or gate to identify any environmental changes, overrun of time and cost targets, or other problems?
4.28. Are internal peer reviews (with other project and sub-project managers and others in the system development, maintenance and operations groups) regularly scheduled to allow the project manager to present performance and progress data, to discuss upcoming challenges, and to identify any horizontal issues?
4.29. Are external peer reviews (with other departments or organizations) planned to provide different perspectives and bring a wide range of expertise to bear on project strategies, plans and issues?
4.30. Are regular sessions held whereby project team members can review the continued relevance of the project, project performance and concerns about actual or potential problems in a non-incriminating way?
4.31. Does the department's internal audit group have plans to review the performance of the project within the next year?