Working Model of a
...
TAP Consult
This document outlines our current best assumptions about what questions are resolved during an effective TRB ReviewTAP Consult. It is based mostly on the ITAG Review Process outlined in the Enterprise Architecture Guide (EAG). This is a draft document and comments / updates are welcome.
Preparing for the
...
Consult
- Project Managers who are coming before the TRB TAP need to prepare a Vision and Scope document.
- The original template for the V&S is here . Look also at the InsideMIT and Undergraduate Admissions examples from the 08-30-2006 review.
Goals of the
...
Consultation Process
- Ensure that projects are ripe enough to leave the Prepare stage of the Project Management Framework (PMF)
- Encourage projects that conform to existing technology guidelines with rapid and explicit gating to the Execute and Control stage of the PMF.
- Scrutinize projects that plan to use new or non-conforming technologies for:
- risks to key areas of concern (data security, e.g.,)
- precedent-setting potential
- new technology roadmaps
- Maintain the integrity of MIT's IT environment and look for opportunities to expand the user community's access to MIT resources
Ground to Cover by
...
Consultants
Project structure
- Is the project following the process outlined in the PMF?
If 'yes', examine the Project Startup checklist.
If 'no', an equivalent level of attention to the same details is necessary. The project has to demonstrate a satisfactory level of documentation, effective sponsorship, financial backing, and achievable vision. - Can the project team answer 'Yes' to the questions in the Project Startup Checklist?
(Perhaps only the first two sections are truly required; but without sufficient attention to this, the project may not be in a reviewable consultable state).
NOTE: Suggest we have the Startup Checklist in the packet of handouts at the review. - Has the project progressed to the Design stage of the SDLC?
If not, is this review consult an informational one, or to offer advice as to guidlines guidelines that need to be followed? What are we actually reviewing?
...
After the Meeting -- Our Method for Arriving at Findings
At the reviewconsult, after the presenters have left the room, there is an around-the-table straw vote as to the outcome of the proposal. Voting by TRB TAP members is for one of:
Finding | Interpretation |
|---|---|
Yes | Go ahead; I have read the document and agree with what it proposes to undertake. |
No Objection, | I have not actually read the document, or I have not developed an opinion but I don't want to hold things up. |
Abstain | I am recusing myself for conflict of interest or similar reason for essentially opting out of the decision-making |
Discuss | I have concerns and we need to talk about this more before it can be approved. |
Approving a project proposal requires a 2/3ds majority of "Yes" or "No Objection" votes, and no "Discuss" votes.
After the reviewconsult, meeting notes are summarized and posted to the TRB TAP before the next day.
A findings document is drafted and posted to the wiki for comment by the end of Friday of the following week.
The final findings draft is prepared and circulated by the end of the following Monday.
Approving the review consult for circulation is a short agenda item at the next TRB TAP meeting.
One of the purposes of the Findings document is to articulate the perspective of the board members about the project, clarifying and reinforcing aspects of the design that are especially advantageous or potentially risky and why.
...