What makes a software checklist useful?
A useful checklist converts a broad hope into a testable requirement. It states who needs the capability, why it matters, how the vendor will prove it, and what evidence the team accepted.
The checklist should be completed before vendor demonstrations and used consistently across finalists. It is a decision record, not a collection of boxes copied from marketing pages. Requirements involving sensitive records need privacy, security, and legal owners as well as product reviewers.[1][2]
Which checklist sections are essential?
Cover the whole relationship between the organization and the product, including adoption, governance, evidence, and exit. A strong feature set cannot compensate for unusable workflows or unacceptable control of required records.
| Criterion | How to evaluate it |
|---|---|
| Mission and workflow fit | Peer role, participant choice, service model, sites, funding, supervision, and local variation. |
| User experience | Peer, participant, supervisor, leader, administrator, mobile, accessibility, language, and low-connectivity needs. |
| Records and reporting | Required fields, signatures, versions, corrections, metrics, exports, reconciliation, and record ownership. |
| Privacy and security | Applicability analysis, agreement terms, safeguards, permissions, audit, incidents, subcontractors, retention, and deletion. |
| Technology | Identity, integrations, APIs, devices, performance, availability, environments, backups, migration, and monitoring. |
| Commercial relationship | Pricing, services, support, training, change control, service levels, renewal, termination, export, and transition help. |
How should each requirement be recorded?
Use a consistent status vocabulary so a working feature, a configurable feature, a paid service, a roadmap item, and an unanswered question never receive the same checkmark.
| Workflow moment | What good looks like | Evidence to request |
|---|---|---|
| Requirement | Plain-language user need with role and scenario | The exact behavior is unambiguous |
| Priority | Must have, should have, or could have, plus a numeric weight | The weight was set before demos |
| Acceptance test | Steps, sample data, expected result, and exception case | A reviewer can repeat the test |
| Vendor status | Proven now, configuration, service, integration, planned, unavailable, or unknown | The label matches the evidence |
| Evidence | Demo recording or notes, document, contract section, ticket, or reference | Evidence has an owner and date |
| Risk decision | Gap, workaround, residual risk, owner, deadline, and approval | A responsible person accepted or rejected it |
Which checks deserve a live test?
Live-test anything that affects daily adoption, sensitive information, record integrity, time, reporting, or exit. Ask the vendor to use fictional data and the roles your program actually uses.
- Can a peer finish the highest-volume workflow on the device and connection they will actually use?
- Can a supervisor find missing, returned, late, conflicting, and corrected work without a separate spreadsheet?
- Can the team prove who viewed, created, changed, approved, exported, and deleted sensitive information?
- Can a report total be reconciled to a defined population and individual source records?
- Can the organization export usable records and configuration information before termination?
How should the checklist drive approval?
Require resolution or explicit acceptance of every must-have gap, then compare weighted fit, evidence quality, full cost, adoption risk, and contract protection across finalists.
Keep the completed checklist with the decision record and carry accepted conditions into the agreement, project plan, configuration testing, launch criteria, and later review. A promise that matters only in conversation is not a durable control.
Frequently asked questions
Should every requirement have the same weight?
No. Set higher weights for mission-critical workflows, participant safety and privacy, legal obligations, record integrity, adoption, and required reporting. Set weights before demos.
Is a vendor questionnaire enough?
No. Questionnaires are useful intake. Decision-critical answers should be supported with a demonstration, current document, technical review, contract commitment, reference, or repeatable test.
Should planned features receive credit?
Record them as planned, not available. If a future capability is essential, the agreement needs an acceptable commitment and remedy, or the team should choose a product that proves the requirement now.
Can this checklist replace legal or security review?
No. It can organize the review, but qualified owners must assess applicable law, agreements, security evidence, procurement rules, and organization-specific risk.
Sources and product pages
Government sources establish the legal and program requirements covered here. Official vendor pages document the product capabilities and positioning used in this guide.
- The HIPAA Security Rule: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Official federal overview of safeguards for electronic protected health information.
- Understanding Confidentiality of Substance Use Disorder Records: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Official federal overview of 42 CFR Part 2 applicability, consent, use, disclosure, and breach obligations.
- Core Competencies for Peer Workers in Behavioral Health Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Federal framework for recovery-oriented peer work, role clarity, and person-centered practice.
- Peerakeet Platform: Peerakeet. Peerakeet's five connected product pillars and human-guided approach.