Checklist

Project name

Classification	Select an element
Status	Select an element
Program name
Project number
Project manager	Project manager
Version	0.1
Date	Click here to enter a date
Project sponsor	Project sponsor
Author(s)
Distribution

List of changes

Version	Date	Change	Author
0.1

Table 1:	Change control

Description

Based on decision-making tasks, the checklist supports decision-making processes and serves the systematic performance of reviews. Before each review, the general checklist is supplemented with project-specific criteria in the corresponding area.

Decide on ISDP concept

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	ISDP concept	Risk analysis and risk coverage prepared specifically for the project?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Need for emergency concept and processing regulations clarified?
3	Residual risks identified and acknowledged by the project sponsor?
4	ISDP concept checked by the controlling and compliance bodies and no critical findings exist?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 2:	Decide on ISDP concept

Decide on project closure

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Document storage purged, system documentation transferred to the core organization and documentation of project execution archived?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Unrequired resources (infrastructure, etc.) returned to the core organization?
3	Access rights revoked?
4	Expense recording systems, project accounts, etc. finalized?
5	Final project evaluation	Lessons learned summarized in the final evaluation and coordinated with the core organization?
6	Final project evaluation coordinated with stakeholders?
7	Measures for monitoring project success after project closure defined, assigned to a responsible person and scheduled?
8	Project closure meeting held?
9	Project organization dissolved?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 3:	Decide on project closure

Decide on contract award

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Evaluation report	Project objectives, feasibility and benefits are realistic with the chosen offer and the risks are bearable?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Evaluation transparently and comprehensibly documented?
3	Application for awarding the contract to a tenderer coordinated with the core organization?
4	Procurement and contract law specifications adhered to?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 4:	Decide on contract award

Decide on acceptance of migration

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Test report	No test results to prevent acceptance?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Acceptance report	Defects identified?
3	Measures with deadlines and responsibility for remedying defects defined?
4	Are those responsible for the use of the system/product involved in tests and acceptance?
5	Comments from the competent bodies exist?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 5:	Decide on acceptance of migration

Decide on acceptance

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Test report	No test results to prevent acceptance?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Acceptance report	Defects and defect categories indicated?
3	Measures with deadlines and responsibility for remedying defects defined?
4	Are those responsible for the use of the system/product involved in tests and acceptance?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 6:	Decide on acceptance

Decide on agile development using SCRUM

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Impact of agile working methods on the development process identified?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Role assignment and tools clarified?
3	Recommendations of the developer, user and operator exist?
4	Deployment measures and deployment plan defined?
5	Impact on the project and possible risks identified and acceptable?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 7:	Decide on agile development using SCRUM

Decide on call for tenders

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Tender documentation	Project specifications and the catalogue of criteria drawn up comprehensively and in such detail that the offers can be evaluated according to a uniform yardstick?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Sustainability requirements taken into account in the project specifications (also called specifications in Switzerland) and catalogue of criteria?
3	Tender documentation prepared in such detail that it is sufficient to specify the required performance/system?
4	Tender documentation coordinated with the procurement office, legal services and other units of the core organization?
5	Project management plan	Procurement planning prepared and coordinated with the project planning?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 8:	Decide on call for tenders

Decide on launch of operation

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Operating manual	Operating manual comprehensive and geared in sufficient detail to the system to be operated that it meets the operator's requirements?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Operating manual reviewed by the competent bodies and no critical findings exist?
3	System integrated	Integration fully carried out?
4	Operating organization	Operating organization realized and employees instructed?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 9:	Decide on launch of operation

Decide on phase release (deployment)

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Phase report	Phase report exists and checked by all project partners?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Project objectives still related to the core organization's strategies and objectives?
3	Project risks identified and acceptable?
4	Feasibility in organizational, financial, economic, technical and political terms?
5	Deployment measures and organization	Deployment measures and organization realized to such an extent that deployment can take place?
6	ISDP concept	ISDP concept updated and residual risks identified?
7	ISDP concept agreed with and signed by the project sponsor?
8	System architecture	System architecture updated and documentation of the IT system (detailed specification etc.) exists?
9	Project management plan	Project organization aligned to the phase tasks and takes account of stakeholders?
10	All partners have human resources with sufficient capacity and the required skills?
11	All plans (outcomes, communication, test plan, schedule, procurement...) exist and are plausible?
12	Methods and techniques for producing the outcomes defined and agreed among the partners?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 10:	Decide on phase release (deployment)

Decide on phase release (implementation)

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Phase report	Phase report exists and checked by all project partners?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Project objectives still related to the core organization's strategies and objectives?
3	Project risks identified and acceptable?
4	Feasibility in organizational, financial, economic, technical and political terms?
5	ISDP concept	ISDP concept checked by the controlling and compliance bodies and no critical findings exist?
6	System architecture	System architecture checked by the controlling and compliance bodies and no critical findings exist?
7	Deployment concept	Deployment procedure, deployment organization and deployment measures described in such detail that the deployment measures can be implemented?
8	Project management plan	Project organization aligned to the phase tasks and takes account of stakeholders?
9	All partners have human resources with sufficient capacity and the required skills?
10	All plans (procurement, outcomes, communication, reviews, deadlines) exist and are plausible?
11	Methods and techniques for producing the outcomes defined and agreed among the partners?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 11:	Decide on phase release (implementation)

Decide on project release

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Project order	Project objectives complete and consistent?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Project order aligned with the objectives and strategies of the core organization?
3	Risks identified and analyzed, and measures defined. Risks deemed acceptable?
4	List of stakeholders	Stakeholders identified and analyzed, and interests in line with the project objectives?
5	Legal basis analysis	Legal basis in place or measures defined in that respect?
6	Protection needs analysis	Protection needs analyzed and need for an ISDP concept clarified?
7	Study	Selected option described and evaluated based on the objectives and rough requirements?
8	Project scope and boundaries defined?
9	Economic efficiency taking account of investment and operating costs?
10	Evaluation criteria comprehensively defined? Do they take sustainability into account? Do they take the risks into account?
11	Project management plan	Project organization defined taking stakeholders into account?
12	All partners have human resources with sufficient capacity and the required skills?
13	All plans (procurement, outcomes, communication, reviews, deadlines) exist and are plausible?
14	Methods and techniques for producing the outcomes defined and agreed among the partners?
15	Reporting in the project and vis-à-vis the core organization defined?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 12:	Decide on project release

Decide on system architecture

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	System requirements	Requirements documented and prioritized across requirement categories?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Requirements documented comprehensively and in such detail that they are sufficient as a basis for preparing the system architecture and detailed specifications?
3	System architecture	System architecture with its models described with e.g. business process model, function model/service model, data architecture/data model?
4	System architecture with its solution components described?
5	Security architecture described?
6	Requirements assigned to the solution components and requirements fulfillment evaluated?
7	Architecture options evaluated?
8	Detailed study	Detailed studies prepared for all system components to be designed?
9	Options described and evaluated based on the objectives and requirements?
10	Integration concept	Integration items, interfaces, integration environments documented?
11	Integration procedure and measures documented?
12	Integration organization, transport concept and transport processes documented?
13	Prototype documentation	Feasibility of the system architecture demonstrated?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 13:	Decide on system architecture

Decide on an option

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Study	Objectives and parameters agreed with the project sponsor and stakeholders?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Project objectives still related to the core organization's strategies and objectives and documented?
3	Requirements defined comprehensively and in such detail that the options can be evaluated?
4	Strengths, weaknesses and their causes analyzed?
5	All relevant solution options analyzed comprehensively?
6	Evaluation criteria comprehensively defined? Do they take sustainability into account? Do they take the risks into account?
7	Options evaluated in a comprehensible manner?
8	Feasibility of the preferred option in organizational, financial, economic, technical and political terms?
9	Legal basis analysis	Legal basis analysis coordinated with legal service or a corresponding body and results taken into account in the study?
10	Protection needs analysis	Protection needs analysis carried out and results taken into account in the study?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 14:	Decide on an option

Decide on preliminary acceptance

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Test report	No test results to prevent acceptance?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Acceptance report	Defects identified?
3	Measures with deadlines and responsibility for remedying defects defined?
4	Are those responsible for the use of the system/product involved in tests and acceptance?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 15:	Decide on preliminary acceptance

Commission and steer initiation

No.	Outcome	Criterion	Evaluation	Resp.	Date
1	Project initiation order	Resources (human and financial) available for initiation?	Yes	Müller	15.06.2020
2	Project initiation order created with initiation objectives, specifications and parameters?
3	Project manager and team determined for the initiation phase and expectations clarified?
4	Contact persons within and outside the core organization informed?
Project-specific review points
P-1
P-2

Table 16:	Commission and steer initiation

Abbreviations and glossary

Abbreviation/specialist term	Explanation
eCH standard	Swiss eGovernment standard
HERMES	Methodology for projects and programs HERMES 5 is an eCH standard
ISDP	IT security and data protection
ISDP concept	The ISDP concept is the main information security and data protection document in the project

Table 17:	Abbreviations and glossary

Contents

List of changes	1

Description	1

Decide on ISDP concept	2

Decide on project closure	3

Decide on contract award	4

Decide on acceptance of migration	5

Decide on acceptance	6

Decide on agile development using SCRUM	7

Decide on call for tenders	8

Decide on launch of operation	9

Decide on phase release (deployment)	10

Decide on phase release (implementation)	12

Decide on project release	14

Decide on system architecture	16

Decide on an option	18

Decide on preliminary acceptance	19

Commission and steer initiation	20

Abbreviations and glossary	21

Contents	22

Tables	23

Tables

Table 1:	Change control	1

Table 2:	Decide on ISDP concept	2

Table 3:	Decide on project closure	3

Table 4:	Decide on contract award	4

Table 5:	Decide on acceptance of migration	5

Table 6:	Decide on acceptance	6

Table 7:	Decide on agile development using SCRUM	7

Table 8:	Decide on call for tenders	8

Table 9:	Decide on launch of operation	9

Table 10:	Decide on phase release (deployment)	11

Table 11:	Decide on phase release (implementation)	13

Table 12:	Decide on project release	15

Table 13:	Decide on system architecture	17

Table 14:	Decide on an option	18

Table 15:	Decide on preliminary acceptance	19

Table 16:	Commission and steer initiation	20

Table 17:	Abbreviations and glossary	21