Automotive

checklist for start of SW ATBEAS

review

Project: Version: Module(s): Reviewer(s): Date:

Supporting documents:
 Software Release Plan
 Change Package Form
 Software Development Plan
 Action list of the previous End of Software Release Review

Responsible
person
No. Questions N.R. OK Comment / Planned date for
Status
completion
Are all actions defined in the last End of Software
1 Release Review planned and assigned to
responsible persons?
Is the delivery content (CPF) in terms of changes /
2 functions to be implemented clearly defined and
agreed by the PL and the customer?
If not: Is there at least a deadline planned for the
2a final clarification and agreed by the PL and the
customer?
Is the specification for each change / function to
3 be implemented agreed by the customer and
frozen?

If not: Is there at least a deadline planned for the

3a
specification freeze and agreed by the customer?

Are all change requests documented and handled

4 in the defined way (incl. SCCB) and offered to and
accepted by the customer?

Filename:(723564279.doc), last saved: 29.01.2024 page Copyright  by SIEMENS AG 2000

Issue status: 1.2, Document maturity: valid
Department: AT BE AS, Responsible: B. CAILLARD
1 of 3 All rights reserved
for internal use only
 Automotive
checklist for start of SW ATBEAS
review

Responsible
person
No. Questions N.R. OK Comment / Planned date for
Status
completion
Is there any prototyping necessary (e.g. because
5 of unclear specifications) which is not payed by
the customer?
Is there any existing (generic) solution that can be
6 actively promoted to the customer (especially in
case of unclear specifications)?
Are there any activities planned (e.g. „cosmetic“
optimisations) which are not offered to and payed
7
by the customer (as part of the initial offer or
accepted change request)?

Are all planned activities reasonably (in terms of

8
size and duration) allocated to work packages?

Is there an effort estimation, detailed planning and

9 developer available for each work package and is
this agreed by all SWGLs involved?
Are there any additional activities necessary
10 which have not been planned up to now (e.g.
software for EMC testing, software for HW tests)?
Are all major milestones (e.g. internal and external
delivery date) for the next software release clearly
11
defined and in line with the overall project
planning?

Is the stepwise integration of all work packages

12
(incl. intermediate and final baselines) planned?

Is the HW/SW integration (including timely

13 availability of functioning HW) planned and agreed
by the PL?
Filename:(723564279.doc), last saved: 29.01.2024 page Copyright  by SIEMENS AG 2000
Issue status: 1.2, Document maturity: valid
Department: AT BE AS, Responsible: B. CAILLARD
2 of 3 All rights reserved
for internal use only
 Automotive
checklist for start of SW ATBEAS
review

Responsible
person
No. Questions N.R. OK Comment / Planned date for
Status
completion
Is the timely availability of test equipment (e.g.
test benches, test tools, CAN cards, emulators)
14
planned for all involved locations and agreed by
the PL?
Is the timely availability of (customer supplied) 3rd
party software (e.g. Vector CAN software, BMW
15
standard core) planned and agreed by the
customer (in case of his responsibility)?
Is the integration effort for (customer supplied) 3rd
16 party software planned and offered to and payed
by the customer?

Is the coordination of and support for outsourcing

17
activities clearly defined and planned?

Is the Software Development Plan up to date (incl.

18
detailed planning for the next software release)?

Is the Software Risk Analysis up to date and are

all identified risks clearly managed (i.e. evaluation,
19
definition of measures and responsible persons,
regular tracking)?
Is the overall planning of the next software release
consistent in terms of delivery contents, schedule
20
and resources (human and technical) and agreed
by the PL?

Filename:(723564279.doc), last saved: 29.01.2024 page Copyright  by SIEMENS AG 2000

Issue status: 1.2, Document maturity: valid
Department: AT BE AS, Responsible: B. CAILLARD
3 of 3 All rights reserved
for internal use only