Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Project Overview
Deliverable Lifecycle Description and Importance
Stakeholders in Deliverable Lifecycle Process
Presentation of the Deliverable Lifecycle
Roles and Responsibilities in the Deliverable Lifecycle
Checklist to be used in Document Creation
Useful Tools
What is DG TAXUD?
DG TAXUD = Directorate General Taxations and Customs Union
DG TAXUD contributes to:
Internal market - allowing people, goods, services and capital to move more freely;
Digital single market - tearing down regulatory walls and moving from 28 national markets to a single
one;
Economic and monetary union - completing the economic and monetary union.
Demand
What is ITSM3?
ITSM3 is formed of several contractors delivering IT services to DG TAXUD.
This project is a deliverable based project, which means that the documentation that ITSM3 OPS delivers is
as important as the actual product! However you are involved in the deliverable lifecycle process, your
contribution is very important!
It is the customer’s request to have a formal review deliverable lifecycle so that all stakeholders are involved
and agree with the content of the deliverable, thus ensuring its highest quality. The deliverable review cycle
contributes to the acceptance of ITSM3 OPS’s services.
The quality of the deliverables creates a certain level of trust at the client.
Low quality of those work products may impact:
– Quality of IT systems, projects and decisions;
– The SQIs and GQI: the timeliness of submission (4 SQI’s are applicable) and quality of the documents
produced (1 SQI);
T0
T0
Deliverable Planning: Deliverable planning is a activity as it defines the scope, purpose and quality
expectations for the document deliverable. This phase therefore sets the scene for all following
activities in the deliverable lifecycle. This phase is part of T0.
Deliverable Creation: All the steps identified in the Deliverable Creation phase are highly
recommended, as they minimise the risk of a deliverable being rejected later during the Deliverable
Acceptance phase. This phase is part of T0.
Deliverable Acceptance: The review of documents, based on the T1/T2/T3 cycle, is a best practice
method in DG TAXUD and is applicable to all types of documents.
T0
T0
T0
Kick-off
It is a best practice for the author to prepare for the kick-off meeting and present his understanding at the meeting of
the above information in the form of a problem statement.
Responsible: Author
Other roles: CdF, Reviewers
The purpose of the kick-off meeting is to allow the author to clarify and confirm:
What: scope and needs of the deliverable(s);
Who: the final list of reviewers and contributors;
When: deadlines for SfI, SfR, SfA;
Define the approach in order to have the deliverable(s) accepted.
T0
Build
The author starts building the deliverable. During this stage he/she collects information and organises interviews when
required. It is recommended that the authors clarify any uncertainties with IntQAC, early in the building activity.
Responsible: Author
Other roles: Contributors, IntQAC, Reviewers
It is good practice to invite the reviewers of the deliverable to the preparatory meetings and/or workshops that are held
during the build phase of the deliverable. This allows the reviewers to understand the expectations and agreements on
the deliverable. Specifically, the QA Contractor can be invited to these preparatory meetings to prepare their review of
the deliverable.
Recommendation:
When dealing with external contributors, such as Member States, it is important to ensure that sufficient time is foreseen to collect all
material. This is particularly true for documents concerning new subjects (new applications, functionality, etc). Some time will be spent
on analysing the existing documentation and consolidating the comments collected before creating the initial draft.
T0
SfI & Pre-review (1)
When the document is around 80% complete, the draft should be sent for information (SfI) to all reviewers, to provide
them with an initial feeling of the content of the document. Although this step is optional, it is highly recommended.
Responsible: Author, Reviewers
Experience shows that the effort required for the review of SfI versions of the document is often not anticipated and
feedback is not always obtained. Therefore it is highly recommended to communicate the planning of the SfI
versions well in advance and to obtain commitment of the stakeholders on the review of this version.
The pre-review should be planned so that:
all readers can assess the content of the document;
the author has time to complete and correct the document before the official review cycle.
T0
SfI & Pre-review (2)
After the author implements the comments from the reviewers, the author should send the document to IntQAC for the
final internal review.
Responsible: Author, IntQAC
This step is mandatory before the document is submitted on the official review cycle.
The author must allocate enough time for the review of the deliverable as well as for implementing any proposed
changes.
It may be useful to plan several pre-reviews (SfIs at reviewers & IntQAC), especially when the document needs to be
reviewed by many people and may be subject to discussions.
T0
** In these examples, IntQA acted as an Author when it came to the submission and receival of the document. This is an exception made for FQP procedures.
T0
T1/T2/T3 Review cycle
T1= SfR date CCO date
- Review period (T1): EXTERNAL reviewers provide their consolidated comments on the SfR deliverable. A CCO excel file is received from
Reporting Team.
T2= CCO date SfA date (agreement on APO is included)
- Implementation period (T2): the author provides his position by sending the APO excel file to Reporting Team; APO is agreed by the
EXTERNAL reviewers and only after this the agreed changes are implemented into the SfR deliverable. APO not agreed implies APO2.
Several APOs may be exchanged until final agreement is obtained.
* A review meeting may be required for discussing & agreeing specific comments that were not agreed through APO (MDE in the xls file).
If major changes on the SfR deliverable are necessary, an intermediary version of the deliverable may be sent along with APO.
T3= SfA date ACC date
- Verification period (T3): the quality contractor (QAC) performs the implementation verification of the comments (which leads to IVE OK/
NOK) and sends the acknowledgment letter at the request of the CdF (ACC). All IVE NOK should be discussed and explained further to
CdF, after consulting IntQAC.
T0
Review (T1)
The review of documents, based on the T1/T2/T3 cycle, is a best practice method in DG TAXUD and is applicable to
all types of documents.
Responsible: QAC, Reviewers
Other roles: Reporting team
Deliverables that enter the T1 Phase of Deliverable Acceptance are expected to have passed internal Quality Control
and to be of high quality. The review cycle is not intended for major rework of the deliverable. Significant quality
concerns will result in SfR rejection and will cause substantial delays which will have a contractual impact but will also
impact the project.
The Review Coordinator dispatches review tasks to the reviewers. The Review is done according to pre-defined
criteria and the output is a consolidated set of review comments which are sent to the author at the end of T1 (CCO).
T0
Implementation T2 - APO
During this period, the author first provides the Author Position (APO) for the comments received. The reviewers
assess the Authors Position and confirm their agreement with the proposed implementation or inform the Author about
their objections.
Responsible: Author
Other roles: Reporting team, Reviewers
Several APOs may be submitted before an agreement is reached. If some comments need to be discussed in detail, a
review meeting could be organised. The author needs to make sure that the proposed implementation is possible and
it is very clearly stated. The author could request input from other groups too.
Recommendation:
Preparing the APO is very important and could mean the difference between having the deliverable accepted or receiving a request for
re-SfA with financial implications.
T0
Implementation T2 - SfA
During this period, the author must implement the agreed APO in the deliverable and prepare it for acceptance
submission.
Responsible: Author
Other roles: Reporting team, Reviewers
All SfA deliverables must also pass through IntQAC for a review before they are officially submitted.
Between the SfR and SfA versions, the only changes that can be made are the ones in line with the agreed
implementation of review comments. Other changes to the document will be considered as “unauthorized changes”
and may result in SfA rejection.
Submitting the SfA version of the deliverable without recorded agreement on the required implementation exposes the
author to the risk of rejection of the SfA version during T3.
The implementation phase contains both the APO acceptance and SfA submission.
T0
However, in most cases, the CdF does not respond to IVE NOK. In case on an IVE NOK, it is the Author’s responsibility
to request to submit a SfI version of the document with the implemented comments. (for minor comments)
If a deliverable is rejected during its review, the review process is stopped. The deliverable returns to the creation phase and a new
T1/T2/T3 review cycle is defined (new SfR date and new SfA date).
A deliverable submitted for acceptance (SfA) may be rejected at any point during its verification (T3 period) if:
- the review comments have not been implemented;
- the review comments have not been implemented in a correct or consistent manner throughout the document;
- other changes have been made to the document without prior agreement by DG TAXUD and without being reported in the
implementation information of a relevant review comment in the review database.
*DG TAXUD reserves the right to decide whether the non-implementation or inconsistent implementation of review comments, or the other changes to the document, are of
major importance or not, and therefore the document deserves to be rejected or not.
*If a deliverable is rejected during its verification, the verification process is stopped. This generally implies that only a new SfA date is agreed (new T2 and T3 periods)
rather than a new SfR date and a complete new T1/T2/T3 review cycle, based on DG TAXUD's judgement.
IntQAC:
IntQAC acts as “guide keeper” and provides assistance to authors in the lifecycle of deliverables. IntQAC
can provide templates and guidance for document creation as well as review the deliverable internally,
before submitting it on the official review cycle (SfR & SfA).
Reporting team:
Reporting team will provide any information regarding the review cycle and will act as communications
intermediary between the author and the reviewers during T1/T2/T3.