Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Close-Ended Complexity Assessment CEB PMO Leadership Council A Framework for Member Conversations The mission of CEB Inc. and its affiliates is to unlock the potential of organizations and leaders by advancing the science and practice of management. When we bring leaders together, it is crucial that our discussions neither restrict competition nor improperly share inside information. All other conversations are welcomed and encouraged. Confidentiality and Intellectual Property These materials have been prepared by CEB Inc. for the exclusive and individual use of our member companies. These materials contain valuable confidential and proprietary information belonging to CEB, and they may not be shared with any third party (including independent contractors and consultants) without the prior approval of CEB. CEB retains any and all intellectual property rights in these materials and requires retention of the copyright mark on all pages reproduced. Legal Caveat CEB Inc. is not able to guarantee the accuracy of the information or analysis contained in these materials. Furthermore, CEB is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or any other professional services. CEB specifically disclaims liability for any damages, claims, or losses that may arise from a) any errors or omissions in these materials, whether caused by CEB or its sources, or b) reliance upon any recommendation made by CEB. CLOSE-ENDED COMPLEXITY ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW BMO applies an up-front complexity filter to determine the appropriate project management deliverables and governance for each project. The first stage is to assess project risk profiles and steer projects into one of two parallel governance tracks—with lightweight and full methodology. EXECUTIVE TEACHING Most organizations err on the side of process rigor to avoid risk. By using process discipline as a risk management tool, BMO tailors the methodology to the level of project risk, leading to improved project delivery predictability and stakeholder engagement. COMPONENT TEACHING ■■ Component 1: Up-Front Complexity Filter—Perform initial assessment of project risk based on the two basic parameters: project size and complexity. ■■ Component 2: Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator—Conduct comprehensive risk assessments for high-risk projects. ■■ Component 3: Tiered Project Methodology—Calibrate project methodology based on the level of project risk. COMPANY SNAPSHOT BMO Financial Group Industry: Financial Services 2005 Sales: US$12.9 Billion 2005 Employees: 34,000 The Bank of Montreal, Canada’s oldest and fifth-largest bank, has approximately 1,000 branches serving individuals, government agencies, institutions, and large and small businesses, at home and abroad. The company, which is known as BMO Financial Group, provides mortgages, insurance, asset management services, and mutual funds in addition to banking services. BMO is a leading commercial player in chosen U.S. markets through Harris Bank in the Chicago area and Harris Nesbitt’s well-entrenched mid-market client base in the Midwest. © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 1 Structure an objective risk assessment scorecard that all project staff and stakeholders across the organization can consistently apply. ■■ ■■ Lack of clear and consistent risk criteria prevents project stakeholders from understanding each others’ project risks. This not only leads to troubled or failed projects but also prevents accurate diagnosis of the failure’s root causes. DEVELOP A COMMON LANGUAGE FOR RISK Problem: Different Stakeholders Understand Project Risks Differently BMO’s Solution: Develop a Standard Adaptable Risk Assessment Approach Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator Architects Project Manager Business Sponsor Programmer Project C Project B Project A Up-Front Complexity Filter Light Methodology Execution Business Analyst End Users Full Methodology Execution Component 1 Component 2 Component 2 Up-Front Complexity Filter: Measure project delivery risk using clear criteria and closeended questions before project initiation. Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator: Conduct a detailed assessment of identified high-risk projects. Tiered Project Methodology: Adopt a light or full methodology based on the project risk profile. Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 2 Develop clear criteria, close-ended questions, and defined scoring guidelines for initial project risk assessment. ■■ ■■ Most organizations use project size as the sole criterion for determining a project’s overall risk profile. BMO evaluates two parameters—project size and project complexity—in the initial risk assessment phase. “If projects are categorized only by size, you overlook the risk of smaller, more complex projects that can have an impact on multiple systems or multiple business units.” Robin Dhillon Senior Manager, IT Best Practices BMO Financial Group DETERMINE RISK BEFORE PROJECT INITIATION Project Size Criteria Small Medium Large 1. Work Months < 24 24–170 > 170 2. Budget $XXXs < 500 500–1,000 > 1,000 3. Elapsed Project Duration (Months) ≤4 5–12 > 12 4. Project Team Size ≤4 5–12 > 15 Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. Project Complexity Criteria Low Intermediate High 1. Requirements Complexity Straightforward and well understood by project team Complex and well understood by project team Complex and not well articulated 2. N umber of Projects Impacted 0 1 ≥2 3. Interfaces to Existing Systems 0 1–3 > 3 or external 4. Internal/External Groups to Coordinate 1 2–4 >4 5. ProcessingType N/A or batch processing only Simple online query and update Complex processing—Internet/ distributed systems 6. Data Complexity N/A or < 50 entities 50–100 entities > 100 entities 7. Online Response Time > 7 seconds 3–7 seconds ≤ 2 seconds 8. System Availability N/A or less than/equal to 95% 98% Greater than 99% 9. N umber of Daily Transactions ≤ 1,000 1,000–50,000 > 50,000 10. Business Criticality < 30 days outage tolerable 1 week outage tolerable 1 day outage tolerable 11. D ata Quality and Conversion N/A, good quality, simple to convert or automatable Fair complexity, average complexity, average to convert Poor quality, very complex, difficult to convert Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 3 Consider a comprehensive set of factors to assess a project’s overall risk profile. ■■ The detailed assessment results guide the selection of deliverables in project execution methodology. CONDUCT DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT FOR HIGH-RISK PROJECTS BMO Financial Group’s Project Risk Assessment Scorecard Illustrative 1. Project Size ■■ ■■ 6. Project Definition Geographic impact Physical sites affected ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ 2. Project Complexity ■■ ■■ ■■ 7. Internal/External Effect Project interdependencies Interface to existing systems Complexity of requirements 3. Sponsorship ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Clarity of project team roles and responsibilities Business partner commitment Alignment to business strategy ■■ ■■ ■■ ■■ Risk Low Most Medium Half High Almost none Risk Business partner personnel responsible for providing business/ application knowledge on the project are: Low Able to articulate business requirements and have experience with IT projects. Medium Able to articulate business requirements but have no experience with IT projects. High Unable to articulate business requirements. Customer reliance on system Impact on bank’s marketspace Impact on computer operations Development and testing product availability 9. Data Security Experience level of user groups Number of vendors and consultants 5. Effect on User Groups ■■ ■■ 8. Technology 4. Project Resourcing ■■ Availability of documentation Stability of requirements Business knowledge of project team User knowledge of business requirements Number of project team members who are knowledgeable about or have experience in the business area: Changes to organizational strategy staffing levels User training on system/ process ■■ ■■ Data privacy Data quality 10. Risk of Not Doing Project ■■ Competitive customer service advantage Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. See pages 8 to 14 for the full Business Risk Assessment Calculator. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 4 Use full methodology for high-risk projects and light methodology for low-risk projects. ■■ ■■ Tailor project management deliverables and governance in each methodology track to match project risk. Determine the scope of corporate audit involvement based on a detailed risk assessment scorecard. ADAPT METHODOLOGY BASED ON PROJECT RISK Approach for Deliverables and Governable Tiering Percentage of Projects Detailed Risk Assessment (70 Questions) Up-Front Complexity Filter Mandatory Deliverables (9) 1. Letter of Engagement 2. Seed Funding 3. Project Charter 4. Detailed Risk Assessment 5. Project Status Report 6. Activity Network Diagram 7. Risk Tracking Worksheet 8. Client Satisfaction Survey 9. Post Implementation Review (PIR) 20% High Risk (15 Questions) Full Methodology 80% Low Risk Additional Deliverables (20) 1. Stakeholder Participation Form 2. Funding Documents 3. Project Management Plans . . . 20. Application Support Documents Corporate Audit Involvement Corporate Audit reviews the detailed risk assessment to determine involvement during the project lifecycle. Light Methodology Mandatory Deliverables (2) 1. Letter of Engagement 2. Project Charter Processes and Guidelines Projects for low business unit– specific guidelines Local Project Management Corporate Audit Involvement None Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. See pages 15 for the complete list of deliverables. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 5 Dual-stage risk assessment led to an increase in the use of light methodology, better compliance, and improved project delivery. RESULTS Projects Following Full and Light Methodologies Adherence to Methodology Indexed Percentage of Projects Full Methodology ■■ BMO also reported a noticeable improvement in productivity and more focused senior management oversight. Light Methodology 100% 100% 100% 30% 20% 2000 “Since implementing the adaptable risk assessment approach, only 20% of the projects in the portfolio go through a detailed risk assessment. This has led to an increased success rate of projects as the management oversight can now be more focused. It has also reduced the cycle time for projects resulting in freed-up resources; we have seen a noticeable improvement in productivity, although we have not quantified the results yet.” Jesse Hanspal Director, Development Technology Services BMO Financial Group 2006 2000 2006 n = 500. n = 500. Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. Project Delivery on Time, Within Budget Percentage of Projects 80% 30% 2000 2006 n = 500. Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 6 Appendix Detailed Risk Assessment Calculator 8–14 Project Deliverables (Full Methodology) 15 © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 7 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR Project Size Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 1. Work Hours Total estimated work hours 2,832 (24 WM) or less 2,883–20,000 (24 WM–170 WM) More than 20,000 2.Calendar Time Before Completion 4 months or less 5–12 months More than 12 months 3. Project Team Size 4 or fewer members 5–15 members More than 15 members 4.Sites The number of different physical locations affected (i.e., one bank branch is one site.) 1 site 1–3 sites More than 3 sites 5. Geography The geographic locations of sites that will access/operate the production system or project deliverable Locally In North America Global 6.Implementation Extent The scope of implementation delivered by this project Feasibility or design prototype Pilot (partial production) Full production 7.Amount of Change on Existing System/Process The amount of change the project delivers on an existing system/ process N/A or less than 5% 20% or less More than 20% 8.Requirements The functionality of the system/ process/product Straightforward and well understood by project participants Complex and well understood by participants Complex and not well articulated 9.Interdependence with Other Projects The number of projects impacting or affected by this project 0 1 2 or more 10.Interfaces to Existing Systems The number of existing automated application systems with which the new system must interface 0 or N/A 1 to 3 More than 3 or external 11. Groups to Coordinate The number of internal and external groups involved with the project 1 1 to 4 More than 4 12.Type of Processing Processing the system requires N/A or batch processing only Simple online query and update Complex process (e.g., distributed systems) Project Complexity Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 8 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Project Complexity (Continued) Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 13. Data Complexity The level of complexity of the data used by the new system, measured by the number of entites and the relationships between them N/A or not complex (less than 50 entities plus relationships) Moderately complex (50–100 entities) Very complex (more than 100 entities) 14. Response Time as a Critical Requirement The system-required online response time of N/A or greater than 7 seconds, 90% of the time 3–7 seconds, 90% of the time 2 seconds or less, 90% of the time 15. R equirements for System Availability The system availability (i.e., percentage of time usable) must be (Look at your dependencies.) N/A or less than/equal to 95% 98% Greater than 99% 16. Transaction Volume The number of daily business transactions to be processed 1,000 or less 1,000–50,000 More than 50,000 17. C ontingency and Disaster Recovery The ability of the business to operate without the system or process System or process rated “Optional/ Desirable” or “Optional— Discretionary” (30 days or longer outage tolerable) System/process rates “Necessary” (1 week outage tolerable) System/Process rated “Critical” (1 day outage tolerable) 18. Data Conversion The quality of data and impact on conversion process N/A, or simple to convert, or good quality automatable Average complexity or of fair quality, significant work effort to convert Very complex or of poor quality, difficult conversion process 19. P roject Scope and Deliverables The project scope, deliverables, and objectives are Well defined Defined in name but not content Not defined 20. User Knowledge Business partner personnel responsible for providing business/ application knowledge on the project are Able to articulate business requirements and have had experience with IT projects Able to articulate business requirements and have had no experience with IT projects Unable to articulate business requirements 21. B usiness Knowledge of Project Team Amount of project team members who are knowledgeable about or have experience in the business area Most Half None 22. A vailability of Documentation The status of the relevant documentation in the user area is Complete and current 75–99% Less than 75% or outdated 23. Stability of Requirements The requirements to be implemented by the project are Stable Subject to moderate recoverable change Frequently changing Project Definition Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 9 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Sponsorship Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 24. Roles and Responsibilities Project participant roles and responsibilities Are defined, communicated, and accepted Are not clearly defined and communicated, but also not understood Are understood and not agreed to 25. Project Sponsorship The project sponsor Has signed the RFA/SRA Has not signed the RFA/SRA or there are multiple sponsors Is unclear (i.e., who is the sponsor?) 26. C ommitment of Involved Parties The general attitude of business partner, external, and OPS personnel or other participants required for project success All understand the value and are supportive Some are not supportive Some are resistant 27. Benefits of Project The benefits of the project are Well defined, quantified, or of strategic importance Defined in general, not quantified Not well defined or unclear 28. Business Alignment The alignment of the project/system to the business vision, strategic, or tactical plans Is consistent Deviates from plans but satisfies an urgent need (EG statutory or mandatory) or highly profitable opportunity Deviates from plans, and benefits are unclear 29. Extent of User Impact The number of different end-user groups/organizations/departments implementing the process/system One group only Less than or equal to 4 More than 4 30. R eplacement to New System Process The system/process Is an upgrade or replaces an existing, primarily automated system Replaces an existing, primarily manual system/process Is a totally new system/process 31. Procedural/Policy Changes Imposed by the New System Procedural/policy changes required to support the new system/process None or little change Moderate change Extensive change 32. C hanges to Organizational Structure/Staffing Levels Organizational changes required to support the new system/process None or little change Change (relocation or < 20% displacement) Change (> 20% displacement or entirely new business) 33. User Training User training required to use/operate the system/process None or little training Moderate training Extensive training Effect on User Groups Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 10 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Project Resourcing Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 34. P roject Manager Experience PM’s experience level 3 or more prior projects of similar size and nature 1 or 2 prior projects of similar nature No prior projects of similar nature 35. P roject Team Experience Project team’s experience level (for most of the core team) 2 or more prior projects of similar size and nature 1 prior project of similar nature No prior projects of similar nature 36. S upport Group Experience Support group experience level (for most of the core team) 2 or more prior projects of similar size and nature 1 prior project of similar nature No prior projects of similar nature 37. Business Partners User groups’ (those required for project success) experience level 2 or more prior projects of similar size and nature or N/A 1 prior project of similar nature No prior projects of similar nature 38. P roject Manager Availability The project manager manages this project Full time Full time, plus minor projects elsewhere Plus one or more projects or responsibilities 39. Project Team Focus The project team is Assigned to the project full time At least half of the team is assigned full time. Less than half of the team is assigned full time. 40. Experience as a Team The experience of team members as a team All have worked together before. Some have worked together before. Team members are strangers. 41. Participant Availability Participation in the project by business partners and other essential participants Reps identified and actively participating Reps identified and sometimes unavailable Reps not identified or not participating as required 42. Team Location The physical location of the project team (including business partners) Team is located together. Most of the team is located together. Team is located at several sites. 43. Participant Continuity Turnover in the project team or key business partner staff is None Some, less than 30% More than 30% 44. Number of Vendor/ Consultant/Contractor or Other External Organizations The number of external (outside the bank) project participant groups involved in delivering the project None 1 or 2% More than 2 45. P rior Experience with External Organizations The number of times the bank has worked successfully with this external organization before N/A or more than 2 1 or 2 None or prior unsatisfactory experience Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 11 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Internal/External Effect Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 46. S ize of Business: Balance Sheet The profit contribution (p. 2 of an RFA) of the system/project $1 million or less Greater than 1 and less than $3 million Greater than or equal to $3 million 47. Total Cost The total cost (p. 2 of an RFA) of the system/project $500,000 or less $500,001 to $999,999 Greater than or equal to $1 million 48. Strategic Impact The impact of the implementation on the bank’s marketplaces Slight influence/no influence Material influence Key vision business 49. Public Relations Visibility to the customer/external client Errors/problems would not be visible to the customer Errors/problems would be visible to a limited customer group Errors/problems would be newspaper headlines 50. Customer Reliance The extent to which customers/ external parties would rely on the systems/processes No reliance by customer/external part or output reviewed prior to customer receipt Output not reviewed prior to customer/external party Customers/external parties directly interface with the system (e.g., telebanking) 51. Technology Mix Number of hardware/software products (system and application) to be integrated from different vendors that implementation requires 1 or 2 3 4 or more 52. H ardware or System Software The hardware or system software being used is Well established in the bank Established in the industry, but new for the bank New in the industry 53. Programming Language The programming language being used is Well established in the bank Established in the industry, but new for the bank New in the industry 54. Database Management System The project will use a DBMS that is Well established in the bank Established in the industry, but new for the bank New in the industry 55. T ools, Techniques, and Methodology The development tools/ techniques/methods used by the project team will be Well established in the bank Established in the industry, but new for the bank New in the industry 56. Package Software Any software application packages being used will require Basic installation, no code customization 20% or less code customization involving “core” code Greater than 20% code customization involving “core” code Technology Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 12 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Technology (Continued) Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 57. A vailability of Products for Development and Testing Availability of hardware/software for development and testing Guaranteed availability Reasonable assurance of availability No assurance of availability 58. E ffect on Computer Operations/Support Groups The effect of the implementation on the computer operations support groups involved in the production support Little change (e.g., new procedures and schedules) Moderate change (more people, new hardware) Extensive change (e.g., entirely new processes, facilities) 59. A lignment to Bank Technology Architecture Guidelines The new system/environment is Consistent with technology architecture vision and strategies Deviates from plans but satisfies an urgent need (e.g., statutory of mandatory) or highly profitable opportunity Deviates from plans, and benefits are unclear 60. Privacy The data in the system/process is Public Sensitive bank information Confidential client information 61. Financial Impact The potential average loss from one lost transaction N/A or less than $1,000 $1,001 to $99,999 Greater than $100,000 62. Data Security Application/data security is provided by A proven security package/process meeting the bank’s security standards and user requirements An internal (to the application) mechanism or process that may not meet all needs or standards A new mechanism/process that must be designed and built 63. Security Administration The security administration for the application/process is controlled by A unit/person devoted to this job function A unit/person somewhat familiar with and part time on this responsibility A unit/person new to the responsibility 64. Distributed Processing The application and data can be accessed from N/A or stand-alone machine A file server in a stand-alone LAN A file server in a LAN connected to the CWAN 65. Support Access The application/process is being run and supported Internally By a reputable vendor/service bureau familiar to the bank with proven adequate controls By a vendor/service bureau unfamiliar to the bank Data Security Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 13 DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR (CONTINUED) Risk of Not Doing Project Criteria Explanation Low Medium High 66. Strategic Match The project’s direct or indirect relationships to the achievement of stated bank corporate or operations group strategic goals None, but will achieve improved operational efficiencies None, but is a prerequisite/ precursor to or part of a goal The project directly achieves a goal or part of a goal. 67. C ompetitive Customer Service Advantage The project’s delivery of customer service, competitive uniqueness or advantage, or value-add perceived by the customer N/A or none, but improves overall competitiveness by improving operating efficiencies Provides some and moderately or substantially improves the competitive position of the bank by providing a level of service beyond most competitor’s Provides a significant amount and greatly improves the competitive position of the bank by providing a level of service unmatched by competitors 68. Management Information Regarding the delivery of management information on core bank activities The project is not related to the need for management information on core bank activities. The project is not specifically to deliver MI but provides MI largely at the operational level on core bank activities. The project provides essential MI on core bank activities. 69. Competitive Response The effect on the bank’s competitive position if the project is postponed by 12 months Does not affect competitive position or existing systems, and procedures can compensate with minimal escalation in labor costs Does not affect competitive position because existing or new systems/processes can compensate but with substantial increased costs May result in further competitive disadvantage or in a loss of competitive opportunity, or existing successful activities must or may be curtailed because of the lack of the proposed project 70. Regulatory Requirements Regarding the role the project/ system will have in ensuring the bank complies with applicable laws or regulations No or limited laws and regulations apply, and the possibility of or losses from noncompliance are remote Major laws and regulations apply and some possibility or fines of restriction exists but would have minimal effect on the corporation. Major laws/regulations apply and are difficult to comply with or could result/position needs to be developed (e.g., understanding and correctly interpreting what constitutes compliance to cross border regulations). Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 14 PROJECT DELIVERABLES (FULL METHODOLOGY) Mandatory Deliverables Additional Deliverables 1. Letter of Engagement 2. Seed Funding Document 3. Project Charter 4. Detailed Risk Assessment 5. Project Status Report 6. Activity Network Diagram 7. Risk Tracking Worksheet 8. Client Satisfaction Survey 9. Post Implementation Review (PIR) 1. Stakeholder Participation Form 2. Funding Documents 3. Project Management Plans Deliverables for Software Development Projects 4. Requirements Management Plan 5. High-Level Requirements Document 6. Detailed Requirements Specification 7. Systems Development Plan 8. Design Options 9. High-Level System Design 10. Detailed System Design 11. Logical Data Model 12. Physical Database Design 13. Environment Document 14. Test Strategy 15. Test Plan 16. Test Design 17. Plans (Conversion, Implementation, etc.) 18. Operations/User Acceptance 19. Final SLA 20. Application Support Documents (User, Operator, etc.) Source:BMO Financial Group; CEB analysis. INTRODUCTION UP-FRONT COMPLEXITY FILTER DETAILED RISK ASSESSMENT CALCULATOR TIERED PROJECT METHODOLOGY RESULTS APPENDIX © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 15 Contact CEB to Learn More: Phone: +1-866-913-8101 Web: cebglobal.com/pmo E-mail: [email protected] © 2015 CEB. All rights reserved. PMOEC4344015SYN 16