Now that you have completed the work, it is beneficial to verify that the work was of sufficient value, and that you
did not simply consume vast quantities of paper. You should evaluate whether your work is of appropriate quality, and
that it is complete enough to be useful to those team members who will make subsequent use of it as input to their
work. Where possible, use the checklists provided in RUP to verify that quality and completeness are "good enough".
Have the people performing the downstream tasks that rely on your work as input take part in reviewing your interim
work. Do this while you still have time available to take action to address their concerns. You should also evaluate
your work against the key input work products to make sure you have represented them accurately and sufficiently. It
may be useful to have the author of the input work product review your work on this basis.
Since RUP is an iterative delivery process, in many cases work products evolve over time. As such, it is not usually
necessary-and is often counterproductive-to fully-form a work product that will only be partially used or will not be
used at all in immediately subsequent work. This is because there is a high probability that the situation surrounding
the work product will change-and the assumptions made when the work product was created proven incorrect-before the
work product is used, resulting in wasted effort and costly rework. Also avoid the trap of spending too many cycles on
presentation to the detriment of content value. In project environments where presentation has importance and economic
value as a project deliverable, you might want to consider using an administrative resource to perform presentation
tasks.
|