Process Question

[Michael Latta]

David and other reviewers:

 

What are we going to do after the telecons are complete.  At that point I would think we will have some initial impressions, and have had a chance to ask the submitters some questions, but the actual work of doing the trade study would not yet have been started.  Are we going to do a weekly call with action items to prepare more detailed write-ups for circulation comparing various aspects of the submissions?  Will we include multiple perspectives where the reviewers do not reach consensus?  What is our process, or deliverables, and our due date?  What time commitment beyond the 3 scheduled calls will be required to produce a quality trade study of the two submissions?

 

Michael

 

[David Oliver]

Michael,

 

I would appreciate suggeswtions from you and others on how we proceed following the phone calls. I have some ideas, but do not yet know the level of agreement or disagreement we will have among vendors. I beleive we can beine discussing this intellignetly toward the end of the Thursday call and carry on E-mail on the subject over the weekend.

 

WE need an agreement among the reviewers on this. If a reviewer has strong feelings on this now, that person is welcome to give us a strawman draft of how we proceed. If no one else does, I will do so after the Thursday meeting.

 

All of the points you bring up are well taken and there may be others among the reviewers.

 

DAve

[dand...@mitre.org]

Dave,
While I appreciate the chance to ask the two submission teams
questions, all in all I have found it to be a bit distracting. I also
stopped reading other reviewers' comments, because I wanted to complete
my first initial reading of the two specs before I started to write
things down (kudos to those who have and therefore can already share
their comments with the rest of us).
I would think that after the call on Tuesday, each reviewer (at least
those who have not done so yet) would sit down and write their own
comments. The format of that document could be to enter an assessment
of how each of the two submissions adheres to each of the evaluation
criteria. Alternatively, one could take the RTM and add a column for
each of the specs and enter comments there, or it could be some free
format document where the reviewer enters a generalized summary and
individual assessment.
What I am unclear about is whether you aim to reach consensus, and
whether you plan to speak on INCOSE's behalf in stating a plan
forward; or whether the individual reviewer's comments are to be
shared with a larger INCOSE body for further deliberation. Either way,
I have a feeling we will not be able to reach consensus, as it seems we
have widely distinct areas of knowledge and expertise, and each
reviewer is (understandably) being influenced by his/her respective
fields of experience and knowledge.
As the chair, any suggestions from you as to the format and level of
detail you are expecting from us in submitting comments is extremely
welcome and appreciated.
fatma

[David Oliver]

Fatima,

I have sent a cude draft of a manner to collect issues from reviewers. I
expect us to discus it tomorrow. I expect we will agree on some issues and
disagree on others. It may be desirable to capture the degree of concurence
as well. We need to discuss such a collection document and how we will
proceed.

INCOSE MDSD intends to issue a result of the review to both INCOSE and OMG.

Dave