Independent Verification and Validation — Capability Sample
This sample shows how IDCI approaches Independent Verification and Validation, presents an
excerpt of the report each sponsor receives, and describes the outcomes the report produces for the
agency. It serves sponsors, program managers, and governance bodies evaluating IDCI for an IV&V
engagement.
This is a capability sample, not an assessment of your project. The report in
section 2 is written for a representative reference project — a county agency replacing its permitting
and inspections system. The project, its findings, and its dates are illustrative. The format follows the
verification findings reports we have delivered on enterprise system implementations.
1 · Our approach
PMI defines verification as “the evaluation of whether or not a product, service, or
system complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition,” and validation
as “the assurance that a product, service, or system meets the needs of the customer and other
identified stakeholders.” IV&V answers both questions, and a party with no stake in the answer
provides the view.PMI, PMBOK® Guide, Fifth Edition, glossary
Independent by design
We report to the sponsor or governing body, not to
the vendor or the delivery team. We form our own view of the evidence and issue our findings without prior
approval from the teams whose work we assess.
Scope set by the sponsor
An engagement can cover the whole project or
specific deliverables. Where the parties have agreed on acceptance criteria, we assess each deliverable
against those criteria.
Disciplined Project Management
We evaluate whether the project is managed
as its plans and governing standards require.
Information Systems Expertise
We evaluate the technical work and the
information the project relies on, directly from the evidence.
Business Acumen
We evaluate whether the work serves the agency's
operations, its stakeholders, and its mission.
The periodic IV&V report is the deliverable a steering committee reads most often. This
excerpt shows its opening assessment, four of its findings, and the findings log.
Permitting and Inspections System Replacement
Monthly Independent Verification and Validation Report
Reporting period July 1 – July 31, 2027 Issued August 6, 2027
Distribution: Project Sponsor and Steering Committee; concurrent copies to the agency and vendor project
managers
Overall assessment
The project remains on its approved schedule for go-live on January 10, 2028. Configuration
and interfaces meet their specifications to date, and the delivery team closed three of the four findings
open at the last report. Data conversion requires the Steering Committee's attention. Trial Conversion 2
did not reconcile for inspection history records, and the conversion team has not retained evidence of its
reconciliation controls. We rate data conversion at risk for verification until Trial Conversion 3
demonstrates a full reconciliation.
Area
Verification
Validation
Project management processes
On track
Attention
Project artifacts
Attention
On track
Deliverables — configuration and interfaces
On track
On track
Deliverables — data conversion
At risk
Attention
Deliverables — training and user readiness
On track
Attention
New findings this period
F-07The schedule and the risk register disagreeMedium
Three risks rated High in the risk register carry mitigation tasks that do not
appear in the integrated schedule.
Evidence
Integrated schedule, July 28 update; risk register, July 30 version; interview with the
agency project manager.
Risk to the sponsor
Mitigation work with no scheduled time or assigned owner competes with
planned work and seldom finishes on time.
Recommendation
Add the mitigation tasks to the schedule, with owners and dates, in the August
update.
Owner · response due
Agency project manager · August 20, 2027
F-08Inspection history does not reconcile after Trial Conversion 2High
Project deliverable · Verification · Information Systems Expertise
Observation
The agreed acceptance criteria for data conversion require every inspection
history record to reconcile to the legacy source. Trial Conversion 2 loaded 98.6 percent of those records.
The conversion team has not reconciled the remainder and did not retain evidence of its reconciliation
controls.
Evidence
Data conversion acceptance criteria, Contract Exhibit C; Trial Conversion 2 load
reports; legacy record counts from county IT; conversion control tracker.
Risk to the sponsor
Code enforcement and property transactions depend on inspection history.
Unreconciled records could leave staff without the history they need after go-live.
Recommendation
Reconcile record counts at each conversion stage, and file the evidence with the
cycle report, before Trial Conversion 3.
Owner · response due
Vendor conversion lead, with sign-off by the county data owner ·
September 14, 2027
F-09Change requests omit the operational impactMedium
Project management process · Validation · Business Acumen
Observation
Change requests reach the Steering Committee with their cost and schedule impact
but without their effect on counter operations or permit turnaround commitments.
Evidence
Change requests CR-011 through CR-014; Steering Committee minutes, July 12 and July
26.
Risk to the sponsor
The committee decides on changes without seeing their effect on service to
residents and contractors.
Recommendation
Include an operational impact statement, prepared by the business lead, with
each change request.
Owner · response due
Agency business lead · August 20, 2027
F-10Acceptance testing never follows a permit from start to finishMedium
Project deliverable · Validation · Business Acumen
Observation
The user acceptance test scripts confirm that each screen functions, but none
follows a permit from application through final inspection.
Evidence
User acceptance test plan, version 1.2; test scripts 1 through 46; walkthrough with two
permit technicians and one inspector.
Risk to the sponsor
The system could pass acceptance testing and still fail to support complete
work at the counter and in the field.
Recommendation
Add end-to-end scenarios, written with permit technicians and inspectors, before
acceptance testing begins.
Owner · response due
Agency test lead · September 3, 2027
Findings log — extract
ID
Finding
Opened
Status
F-01
The Steering Committee kept no record of its decisions.
May 5, 2027
Closed June 28 The committee adopted a decision log and now reviews it at each meeting.
F-03
The requirements traceability matrix omitted 14 contract requirements.
May 5, 2027
Closed July 22 The team updated the matrix, and IV&V confirmed that every requirement traces to a test.
F-05
The GIS interface rejected parcel updates in system testing.
June 9, 2027
Closed July 26 The vendor corrected the defect, and IV&V observed the passing retest.
F-06
The training plan did not cover field inspectors.
June 9, 2027
Open IV&V accepted the response; the revised plan is due August 15.
F-07 – F-10
This report introduces four new findings.
August 6, 2027
Open IV&V has requested responses.
3 · What the sponsor gains
✓
The sponsor gains an objective view of where the project stands,
supported by evidence rather than by the delivery team's own account.
✓
Risks surface early enough for the agency to preserve its
options.
✓
Each decision point rests on evidence. Funding, acceptance, and
go-live each rest on evidence that the work meets its requirements and serves its purpose.
✓
The governing body holds a record it can present with confidence
to its board, its auditors, and the public.
✓
The delivery team receives each finding with its evidence, in time
to prepare a considered response.
4 · How we report
Assessment plan
We agree with the sponsor on the scope of the review,
whether the whole project or specific deliverables, and on the criteria and the reporting cycle, at the
start of the engagement. Where acceptance criteria already exist, they anchor the assessment.
Periodic IV&V reports
We issue findings and risks to the governing
body, each with its supporting evidence. Section 2 presents an excerpt.
Findings log
We track each finding through the delivery team's response
to its closure.
Readiness assessment
We provide an independent view of readiness before
go-live or final acceptance.
What we will not do
We do not direct the vendor, accept deliverables on
the agency's behalf, or manage the work we assess. Our independence rests on a clear separation of those
roles.
Questions about any of this?
If you are evaluating IDCI for an IV&V engagement, the fastest way through is a conversation. Bring
the charter, the contract, or the section of this sample you want tested — thirty minutes is usually
enough to establish whether we are the right fit for the work.