Optional artefacts
To test whether a particular artefact should be employed it must be of sufficient importance to a stakeholder who will consume it in order to achieve one of their primary goals. Not producing the artefact should represent a project risk. The artefact must be non-trivial, implying it cannot be satisfied in a few words. Lastly the artefact should benefit the project by being maintained throughout at least one phase of the project lifecycle (implying that it will not be immediately 'filed').
PrinceLite can be as 'lightweight' or 'heavyweight' as the artefact plan[1] suggests. One approach to evaluating whether a particular artefact should be included is to apply the tests suggested in the table below.
Table: When deciding which artefacts will be produced in any particular project, it is helpful to do a document review and then test the results with the stakeholders to ensure the team produces only what is deemed helpful in project delivery terms.
| Trivial | Maintainable | Identified owner | Produce artefact | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Business case | no | no | Senior responsible owner | Yes |
| Project brief | no | yes | Senior responsible owner | Yes |
| Quality plan | yes | no | - | No |
The Business case may not be maintainable, in that it will not be expected to change over the lifetime of the project, yet it must be produced as it is non-trivial and has an owner.
If an artefact is non-trivial and requires maintenance (it continues to add value to project delivery over time), yet no owner is identified, this would indicate that an owner needs to be found.
If later in the project a particular artefact becomes necessary, it can be added to the project's artefact plan.
[1] An artefact plan is a list and evaluation of the artefacts that have been selected to support project delivery. Obviously if the project chooses to use the minimal set no artefact plan would be necessary.