HKSM

Structured reviews of processes and deliverables to confirm they match the approved scope and acceptance criteria. They surface variances and nonconformances so the team can decide on acceptance, rework, or change requests.

Key Points

• Audits focus on whether scope management processes are being followed; inspections examine deliverables against documented acceptance criteria.
• Use checklists, the requirements traceability matrix, and the scope baseline to drive objective, repeatable evaluations.
• Apply sampling where full inspection is impractical, balancing confidence with cost and schedule impact.
• Conduct at stage gates, before acceptance, after major changes, and when variances or defects are suspected.
• Findings feed decisions: accept deliverables, request rework, raise change requests, or improve processes.
• Maintain independence and evidence trails to support transparent decisions and stakeholder sign-off.
• Prevent gold plating by verifying only what is in the approved scope and acceptance criteria.

Purpose of Analysis

Provide objective assurance that the product and the way it was built align with the scope baseline and requirements. Enable data-driven acceptance and timely corrective actions.

• Detect scope variances early and prevent downstream rework.
• Validate that delivered features trace to approved requirements.
• Confirm that change control for scope has been followed.
• Identify process gaps causing repeated scope issues.

Method Steps

• Define criteria: confirm acceptance criteria, sampling plan, and checklists from the WBS dictionary and requirements.
• Plan the activity: schedule time, identify participants, and clarify roles (inspector, recorder, SMEs, requestor).
• Prepare artifacts: gather deliverables, RTM, latest scope baseline, change log, and prior findings.
• Execute inspection: walk through deliverables against each criterion; record objective evidence with pass/fail and notes.
• Execute audit: verify adherence to scope processes (requirements management, change control, baseline updates).
• Classify findings: defects, nonconformances, process gaps, and accepted deviations with documented rationale.
• Decide actions: accept, request rework/defect repair, raise change requests, or initiate preventive/corrective actions.
• Follow up: verify closure of actions, update lessons learned, and refine checklists.

Inputs Needed

• Scope baseline, including scope statement, WBS, and WBS dictionary.
• Requirements documentation and requirements traceability matrix.
• Defined acceptance criteria and quality checklists.
• Deliverables or work products ready for review.
• Change log and approved change requests affecting scope.
• Organizational standards, procedures, and prior audit/inspection results.

Outputs Produced

• Inspection reports with pass/fail results and evidence.
• Audit reports detailing process adherence and gaps.
• Defect or nonconformance logs with severity and ownership.
• Acceptance decisions and stakeholder sign-offs.
• Change requests for scope updates or defect repair.
• Updates to lessons learned, checklists, and potentially the scope baseline.

Interpretation Tips

• Tie each finding to a specific requirement ID to avoid debate and scope creep.
• Differentiate defects (meet criteria via rework) from scope changes (require approval before doing extra work).
• Use severity and impact to prioritize fixes and schedule follow-up inspections.
• Look for patterns indicating process issues, not just one-off defects.
• When sampling, adjust sample size if defects are found at a high rate.

Example

A team completes a mobile app feature. The PM schedules an inspection using the WBS dictionary and RTM. Each acceptance criterion is tested, evidence captured, and three defects are logged. Two are fixed and re-inspected; one requested behavior is not in the baseline, so a change request is raised. After rework is verified, the product owner signs acceptance.

Pitfalls

• Treating unapproved enhancements as defects, leading to hidden scope changes.
• Vague acceptance criteria that force subjective decisions.
• Skipping documentation, making it hard to justify acceptance or rework.
• Over-inspecting low-risk items, consuming schedule without added value.
• Lack of independence, causing bias or stakeholder disputes.
• Failing to verify closure of actions, allowing repeat issues.

PMP Example Question

Before accepting a major deliverable, the sponsor asks if the work matches the approved requirements. What should the project manager do next?

1. Ask the team lead to confirm the work is complete based on expert judgment.
2. Perform a cost-benefit analysis to justify acceptance.
3. Conduct an inspection against documented acceptance criteria and record results.
4. Approve the deliverable and update lessons learned.

Correct Answer: C — Conduct an inspection against documented acceptance criteria and record results.

Explanation: Acceptance should be based on objective evidence from inspections. Using the defined criteria ensures alignment to the scope baseline and supports a defensible acceptance decision.