Verify whether the process is reflected in the way work is actually done.
Compare execution evidence from the tools where the work happens with the effective process that applies to that ART, endeavor, product, project, or risk class.
Defining a process does not prove that it is being followed.
Evidence of execution lives in the tools and artifacts used to perform the work: tickets, requirements, code repositories, reviews, test results, approvals, traceability, release information, and other operational records.
The objective is not to enforce one generic process everywhere. It is to verify adherence against the process that should actually apply to that context.
Create evidence-backed visibility into where execution aligns with the effective process, where it differs, and which deviations require attention.
Depending on available evidence, whether expected…
- Activities occurred
- Work products exist
- Reviews took place
- Approvals were obtained
- Tests were executed
- Traceability was maintained
- Required relationships are present
- Gates or Definition-of-Done conditions were satisfied
- Process sequence or dependencies are reflected in actual work
Where the engagement can look
- Jira
- Azure DevOps
- Confluence
- SharePoint
- Source-code repositories
- Test results
- Release artifacts
- Approval records
- Other engineering evidence
Which repositories are connected depends on the engagement.
Six steps from effective process to prioritized action.
Resolve the effective process
Determine the process that applies to the selected organizational and product context, including relevant tailoring.
Define evidence expectations
Identify which process expectations can be verified through available execution evidence.
Connect evidence sources
Use the relevant engineering and operational repositories included in the engagement.
Evaluate adherence
Compare the available evidence with the process expectations.
Investigate deviations
Distinguish missing evidence, genuine deviation, acceptable contextual variation, and unrealistic expectations.
Prioritize action
Determine which deviations represent real risk or recurring process friction.
- Missing evidence
- Genuine process deviation
- Acceptable contextual variation
- A process expectation that is itself unrealistic or unclear
A safety-relevant change, and what the evidence shows.
- Effective process requires
Impact analysis, updated traceability, test evidence, and approval before the change is considered complete.
- Execution evidence shows
Tests and approval are consistently present, but traceability updates are frequently added only shortly before release.
- The question the finding raises
Is the process unclear, is the tooling awkward, or is the timing requirement itself poorly designed?
- Effective-process scope
- Evidence model
- Adherence findings
- Deviations and missing evidence
- Contextual observations
- Recurring patterns
- Prioritized follow-up actions
- Improvement candidates for the operating model
- Effective-process resolution
- Tailoring context
- Process expectations
- Evidence mapping
- Engineering-system connectors
- Adherence analysis
- Findings
- Trends
- Improvement recommendations
Recurring adherence findings are one of the strongest inputs to the governed improvement loop.