Short Guides to IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines. Introduction. Issue 2.0

Transcription

1 Short Guides to IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines Introduction Issue 2.0

2 Short Guide Introduction Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 PREFACE Purpose of this document A SHORT GUIDE TO IDA QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES Introduction DECISION POINTS Decision Point 1 (Start a Pre-study) Purpose Decision criteria...4 Project output for decision Decision Point 2 (Start Feasibility) Purpose Decision criteria...5 Project output for decision Decision Point 3 (The Feasibility Evaluation) Purpose Decision criteria...6 Project output for decision Decision Point 4 (Start Development and Validation) Purpose Decision Criteria Basis for decision Decision Point 5 (Evaluate Progress) Purpose Decision criteria Basis for decision Decision Point 6 (Deliver Service/Tool) Purpose Decision criteria Basis for decision Decision Point 7 (Hand-over Service/Tool) Purpose Decision criteria Basis for decision Decision Point 8 (CLOSE PROJECT) Purpose Decision Criteria Basis for decision POST IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Cost Benefit Analysis...9

3 Short Guide Introduction Page 1 1 PREFACE 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT #1 This document is a Short Guide to be used by IDA Projects as part of the IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines. It is intended to assist the relevant management or technical staff, whether client or contractors, in establishing proper ways of working within each project life-cycle phase. It is also useful background reading for anyone involved in developing or monitoring the IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines. #2 This document also contains the various Decision Points and their decision criteria.

4 Short Guide Introduction Page 2 2 A SHORT GUIDE TO IDA QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES 2.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of the Short Guides is to define standardised guidance for project management and on how to use the IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines. IDA Quality Assurance Guidelines should be used pragmatically and adapted to each specific project. Advice on how to adapt the process is described in the IDA Quality Assurance Guideline for tailoring the Project Management Process. The IDA Programme is based on two Decisions of the European Parliament and the Council 1. The first decision lays down the guidelines and principles for the setting up of trans-european telematic networks between administrations (hereinafter the Guidelines Decision), while the second one covers the aspects of interoperability between and across these networks (hereinafter the Interoperability Decision). Under the IDA Programme, trans-european networks, systems and applications or enhancements of existing applications are developed by means of sectoral projects, while making use of IDA horizontal actions and measures, in particular IDA generic services. A project is a one-time job, the scope and completion of which are pre-defined and are intended to enhance the user benefits. The organisation of the project is temporary. The phases of a project, developing databases or applications, are described in this document. The phases are frequently used in various parts of the public and private sector and are defined in Article 5 of the Guidelines Decision. DP1 DP2 DP3 DP4 DP5x DP6 DP7 DP8 Start Prestudy Start Feasibility Approve Feasibility Start Development Evaluate Progress Deliver Service / Tool Handover Service / Tool Close Project Contractor / Project Management Decision Process Contractor / Project Management Process Preparatory Feasibility Development and Validation Implementation Project Mgmt Phases 1 Decision No 1719/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 on a series of guidelines, including the identification of projects of common interest, for trans-european networks for the electronic interchange of data between administrations (IDA), OJ L 203, , p. 1. and Decision No 1720/1999/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 1999 adopting a series of actions and measures in order to ensure interoperability of and access to trans-european networks for the electronic interchange of data between administrations (IDA), OJ L 203, , p. 9.]

5 Short Guide Introduction Page 3 User requirements should always define the starting point for a pre-study on how to fulfil the needs. A formal start decision is needed, usually a legal instrument. After the closing of the project, the responsible "sectoral owner" should take over and fund the use and continued development of the network, system or application based on evolving user requirements. Further development can, in the event of major changes, be handled as IDA projects.

6 Short Guide Introduction Page 4 3 DECISION POINTS The definition of a Decision point (DP) is: A pre-defined time when the Sectoral, or Steering committee meets and makes decisions about the next step in the project. The decision criteria described in this document reflects how the project qualify to proceed to the next phase. The Sectoral/Steering committee evaluates the delivered results (i.e. reports, documentation etc) towards the expected minimum criteria. 3.1 DECISION POINT 1 (START A PRE-STUDY) Purpose Make a decision to start the pre-study and set up the framework for the preparatory phase. Where applicable, apply for IDA funding (see the IDA document "Checklist for Sectors") Decision criteria There is a decision agreed upon by the Sectoral Committee(s) concerned, as well as the TAC and any other parties involved in IDA Project initiation and management, to further investigate the possibility and opportunity for starting an IDA Project. Before entering the preparatory phase the decision criteria should involve; a project idea that contains achievable benefits and exceeds the estimated costs of executing the project. The project idea should be in compliance with relevant high-level objectives and targets. The project proposal should describe: Compliance to relevant legal decision Proposal of new or changed organisational requirements or user requirements Project vision or improvement idea Compliance to relevant ICT Strategy Compliance to relevant Sectoral legislation/master Plan Project output for decision Project Proposal Project Initiation Document (If the proposal is changed during the decision process)

7 Short Guide Introduction Page DECISION POINT 2 (START FEASIBILITY) Purpose Decide that preparations are complete and based firmly on a consistent, coherent and consensual view of what the project is meant to achieve and why, and that there is sufficient basis for committing to the feasibility phase. Where applicable, apply for continued IDA funding Decision criteria The Preparatory Report should be in accordance with the provisions in Article 5 2 of the Guidelines Decision 3.. In particular all parties involved should agree upon future costs and the benefits. The expected costs should be estimated in terms of development, operation and maintenance. This should also include proposed cost-sharing principles over the project lifecycle, and details of the expected contributions to be made by: The IDA budget Other EC budget lines Member States Other contributors When the preparatory report has been authorised, the decision to start feasibility can be taken Project output for decision Preparatory report (final) 3.3 DECISION POINT 3 (THE FEASIBILITY EVALUATION) Purpose To approve that the feasibility phase has established whether the project goals can be achieved with the identified constraints and if so, decide on continuance to the development and validation phase. 2 A post-implementation review of each IDA project shall be carried out in coordination with the member states within the Framework of the Community Policy or activity concerned and presented to the relevant Sectorial Committee referred to in article 8 within one yerar following the end of the implementation phase. The review shall include a cost-benefit analysis. 3 IDA projects shall include a preparatory phase, a feasibility phase, a development and validation phase, and an implementation phase. The preparatory phase shall lead to the establishment of a preparatory report comprising the objectives, scope and rationale of the project and in particular the anticipated costs and benefits, as well as the achievement of the necessary commitment and understanding among the participants through appropriate consultation. 4 A post-implementation review of each IDA project shall be carried out in coordination with the member states within the Framework of the Community Policy or activity concerned and presented to the relevant Sectorial Committee referred to in article 8 within one year following the end of the implementation phase. The review shall include a costbenefit analysis.

8 Short Guide Introduction Page Decision criteria The feasibility phase shall ensure that the project goals are defined and agreed upon. The feasibility of the project goals is evaluated, taking into consideration the technical and organisational constraints. The plans should clearly show what service to build and how to build it. All information needed for the planning of the project must be identified, including resource needs (human as well as technological), selected contractors, participating parties, stakeholders, project interfaces, and what are the high level risks. Based on this, the plan should describe a suitable development strategy and process Project output for decision Project Definition Document, final Global Implementation Plan (GIP, First Issue) 3.4 DECISION POINT 4 (START DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION) Purpose Approve to start the Development and Validation Phase Decision Criteria All plans that are needed for the management of the project execution are established. Project budget and funding are established Project targets and deliveries are fully defined and agreed upon. Expected benefits are estimated to be achieved by defined project plan. Third party contribution has been defined and there are signed agreements with the contractors. Major risks are identified, and mitigation and contingency measures are planned. Project supporting functions, like Quality Assurance and Configuration and Change Management, have been established. The authorised stakeholders agree upon all Plans, and the resource owners are committed Project output for decision Project Definition Document, final Contractors Project Management and Quality Plan Requirements Specifications User requirements System requirements Project time and delivery plan, including milestones

9 Short Guide Introduction Page DECISION POINT 5 (EVALUATE PROGRESS) Purpose To validate the acceptability of the project s progress and going according to plan and to decide upon project continuation Decision Criteria The project shall continuously measure its progress compared with the plans. Corrective actions are taken if required. Sub-contracts, changes, and risks are managed according to the defined procedures. The agreed upon delivery plan with its milestones is reported in terms of fulfilment. All information is made available to the stakeholders involved Project output for decision Progress reports Contractors Progress reports Contractors Test reports 3.6 DECISION POINT 6 (DELIVER SERVICE/TOOL) Purpose To evaluate acceptability of the service or tool quality and that it is possible to make a final delivery or go ahead with network/database/system integration activities Decision criteria This evaluation should establish that the service or tool is of acceptable quality and has implemented all established and agreed upon requirements. This is verified through a first set of acceptance test delivered service/tool. The preparations for the Implementation phase have begun and the maintenance and support organisation has been established for de operational phase Project output for decision Operational Quality Plan (First Issue) Acceptance Test Plan (First Issue) Contractors Test reports

10 Short Guide Introduction Page DECISION POINT 7 (HAND-OVER SERVICE/TOOL) Purpose To formally make the decision to hand over the final version of the service/tool to the user community Decision Criteria The developed service or tool shall be formally accepted by the user community and be fully functional. All involved parties formally agree upon the necessary documents and agreements for maintenance and support. Authorised stakeholders approve the delivery through verified results in acceptance tests. It is validated that the deliveries enable achievement of expected benefits (the benefits as agreed upon in feasibility phase and expressed in the GIP) Project output for decision Service Level Agreements User documentation System documentation Operational Quality Plan Acceptance test results 3.8 DECISION POINT 8 (CLOSE PROJECT) Purpose To formally decide on project closure Decision Criteria The project is closed and all documentation stored in an appropriate way and according to procedures. The project is evaluated and best practices are documented and stored in an appropriate way according to procedures Basis for decision Final report Project closing accounts Acceptance tests Project evaluation

11 Short Guide Introduction Page 9 4 POST IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION 4.1 COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS According to Article 5(9) of the Guidelines Decision 4, a Cost Benefit Analysis shall be performed within one year after Implementation, i.e. Decision Point 7.

12 Short Guide Introduction Page 10 DOCUMENT CONTROL Title: Issue: Issue 2.0 Date: 11 November 2002 Author: Distribution: Reference: Filename: Control: Introduction to Short Guides and IDA Project Quality Guidelines Maria Johnson Kjällström, Ake Norman EC DG Enterprise Joris Heeren Project Team IDA-QAG-SG IDA-QAG-SG-Intro Reissue as complete document only DOCUMENT SIGNOFF Nature of Signoff Person Signature Date Role Authors Maria Johnson Kjällström Åke Norman 11 November 2002 Senior Consultant Senior consultant Reviewers Klas Johansson Åke Norman 11 November 2002 Framework Mgr Senior Consultant DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD Date Version Author Change Details 13 October Maria Johnson Kjällström First Issue 19 October Maria Johnson Kjällström Updated after review with Mr Joris Heeren 05 November Maria Johnson Kjällström Åke Norman Updated after meetings with DG AGRI and EEA. 14 November Klas Johansson Updated after review of IDA 11 November Maria Johnson Kjällström Updated after changes made in IDA QAG

13 Short Guide Introduction Page 11