BW-301b · Module 2

Deliverable Definitions

5 min read

A deliverable without a definition is a promise without terms. "A comprehensive report" is not a deliverable — it is a description of an artifact type. The client's definition of "comprehensive" and yours will differ, and that difference will surface at the worst possible moment: when the deliverable is due and you believe it is complete and they do not.

Deliverable definitions answer three questions: what will be produced, in what format, and how will both parties know it is complete.

  1. Specify the Artifact Name what will be produced with enough specificity that a third party could verify whether it was delivered. Not "documentation" but "a system architecture diagram in Visio format, depicting the proposed integration architecture between [System A] and [System B], reviewed and approved by Client's technical lead." Not "a report" but "a 15-25 page written report in PDF format covering the findings and recommendations from the discovery phase, organized as specified in Appendix A."
  2. Define the Acceptance Criteria Every deliverable needs acceptance criteria — the specific, measurable conditions that constitute completion. These criteria should be written so that a reasonable person unfamiliar with the project could evaluate whether the deliverable meets them. "Client's technical lead will confirm that all 47 integration points specified in Appendix D have been tested and are functioning as documented." This is an acceptance criterion. "Client is satisfied with the integration work" is not.
  3. Establish the Review Process Define the review cycle before work begins: how many rounds of revision are included, the timeline for client feedback, and what happens if feedback is not provided within the specified window. "Client will provide written feedback within 10 business days of delivery. VENDOR will incorporate feedback and resubmit within 5 business days. This cycle repeats once. Any additional revision rounds are out of scope and will be addressed via change order." Written upfront, this is a process. Raised after the third revision cycle, it is a conflict.

Do This

  • "A written gap analysis (15-25 pages, PDF), identifying all process gaps between current state and the target operating model, with a priority rating (High/Medium/Low) for each gap"
  • "Client approval constitutes written sign-off via email from the designated project sponsor or their delegate"
  • "Two rounds of client-requested revisions are included. Additional rounds are available at [rate] per round."
  • Reference a specific appendix for complex acceptance criteria that would bloat the main SOW

Avoid This

  • "A comprehensive analysis document covering relevant gaps and opportunities"
  • "Client will review and approve deliverables in a timely manner"
  • "Revisions will be made as needed until client is satisfied"
  • Leave the definition of "complete" implicit and address disagreements when they arise