Project Management Business Review Checklist
- In the context of existing and other planned developments, does the scope of this project look reasonable? Should it be extended/limited?
- Does the project take reasonable share of the current resources available? Resources include staff, financial budgets, machine time, etc.
- What is the opportunity cost of the proposed development?
- Are there political or other factors that override or diminish the cost/benefit view of the justification?
- Does the project or proposed system conform to company and/or management style?
- Are the statements regarding the existing system correct?
- Do the figures for volumes and running costs agree with known data?
- Is there a single major problem concerned with the existing system, which if dealt with individually would do away with the need for a new system?
- Are the users aware of existing systems problems, or is the impetus for change purely external?
- Is the proposed system volume dependent? If so, have expected volumes been clearly stated? Are peak volumes catered for?
- Have the users been fully involved in assessing system requirements?
- Have the users signified their acceptance of the suggested requirements (by participation in lower level Q-A procedures)?
- If any special tools or techniques were used to assess requirements or measure rates and volumes, for example by simulations, were they satisfactorily constructed and carried out?
- In suggesting system requirements, are there excessive or abnormal demands on:
- computer operations staff;
- data preparation or control staff;
- user department;
- development staff.
- Are the base assumptions correct? Are they in line with technical standards?
- Does the proposed system meet all the stated requirements? Are the reasons for not meeting any requirements fully justified?
- Does the proposed system include any facilities not identified as part of the system requirements? Are any additional requirements fully justified?
- Are features of the proposed system reasonably attainable? Are there any unreasonable assumptions made about:
- staff capacities and abilities;
- extraordinary working hours or conditions.
- Is there a pioneering element in the proposed development? Has the risk been adequately assessed and justified?
- Does the proposed system hang together? Is it workable? Are there any omissions, illogicalities or logistic errors?
- Have all possible alternatives for the development been examined, costed and shown to be less attractive than the selected option?
- Will the currently proposed system be invalidated by an alternative that may soon be available or more attractive?
- Are management satisfied that the technicians involved have an in-depth understanding of the technical aspects of the project?
- If technical pioneering is involved has the cost and time of the learning curve been adequately assessed?
- Are correct assumptions made about:
- data storage capacities;
- run timings;
- program languages;
- development techniques.
- For new hardware and software acquisitions are the claims of the supplier fully substantiated? Have they been validated by reference to other existing users?
- Are suggested equipment and techniques either obsolescent or too sophisticated?
- Have all aspects of fall-back and recovery been fully considered and satisfactory solutions presented?
- Have all aspects of privacy and access been fully addressed?
- What new disciplines will the proposed system impose on the user department? Is there current experience of such departments’ performance, and, if so, are the new disciplines likely to cause problems?
- Will the new system give rise to problems of morale?
- Is there adequate provision for user participation and liaison throughout the project life?
- Are the users enthusiastic about the system?
- Are user departments fully aware of the organization implications?
- Have they committed themselves to unrealistic time-scales and/or task performance?
- Is the implementation plan fail-safe?
- Have all possibilities for implementation failure been fully evaluated?