Evidence for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10

I ever have problems advising my customers on direct artifacts for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10, especially in (really) small settings (groups of up to 10 or 20persons and small projects). People reading the model are highly frustrated and ask: "Well, do I have to take measurements or use checklist for everything? That's utterly useless." And I have to agree!

For me, the best way to perform day-to-day-monitoring outside of regular Stakeholder-meetings is "management by sneakers" and ask frequently intrusive questions like "Are you performing as planned?", "Do you follow the plan?", "Did you use our template?", "Why did you not follow the plan (or our process)?", "Does our process or template fit your needs?" etc. That's much more effective than scheduling a meeting and brainlessly pounding on a checklist.

But I always have problems then finding direct artifacts, when things are running smoothly. I am highly convinced, that nothing has to be produced for appraisal's sake, only. What do you think?

I find that every client I appraise, big or small, has difficulties understanding the difference between GP 2.8 and GP 2.10.

GP 2.8 is monitoring and controlling the process WHILE you are executing it, not after the fact.

Reviewing the results of having followed the process at some later time with higher manager is essentially GP 2.10.

I don’t see a difference between large or small settings when performing these two practices. The only difference would be the actual procedures. Large organizations would have more projects and procedures to monitor and control and then report on than small organizations. And for real small settings it is usually the same people performing both GP 2.8 and GP 2.10, and that is usually why small organizations have difficulties with these two GPs.

Your day-to-day monitoring questions sound much more like the questions PPQA should be asking during a process audit. And you are right, these are invasive questions for the monitoring of a process while it is being executed.

Here is what I advise clients as acceptable evidence for GP 2.8 and GP 2.10:

GP 2.8
Direct Evidence is usually the process monitoring as demonstrated in a report at some project status meeting or review.
Indirect Evidence is either a corrective action resulting from the monitoring or the meeting minutes.
MA must be used to monitor and control GP 2.8, the same way as it is used for all project measures.
The emphasis is on PROCESS measurements and PROCESS reviews NOT project monitoring.

GP 2.10
In a Maturity Level 3 and above organization, there should be organization-wide process statusing, activity reporting, etc. at the organizational level as well as the project level.
The emphasis is on PROCESS measurements and PROCESS reviews NOT project monitoring.
Direct Evidence may be the monthly project reviews that include the status of the project’s processes AND the monthly/quarterly process or SEPG reviews
Indirect Evidence would be meeting minutes and/or meeting agenda for the evidence provided as direct evidence.