[Cesg-all] Are AD's managers ?

[Adrian J. Hooke]

Nestor: perhaps surprisingly, I think that the answer to your initial 
question is "NO". According to 
<http://public.ccsds.org/publications/archive/A02x1y2.pdf>CCSDS A02.1-Y-2 
an Area Director is expected to be a technical expert in his/her field, but 
not necessarily a manager:
The ADs for a particular Area are expected to know more about the combined 
work of their Working Groups than anyone else. While they may on occasions 
draw upon expert assistance from WG members as necessary to resolve 
detailed issues at the CESG level, they are generally expected to be able 
to independently represent all work within their Area at CESG meetings..... 
A  candidate for selection as an AD must be recognized as leading technical 
expert in the field covered by that Area and must have extensive prior 
experience leading a specific standards development task within the CCSDS, 
such as having served as a Working Group Chair or Deputy Chair.....An Area 
Director is specifically responsible for:
1.      Being a member of the CESG as the single representative of the 
CCSDS technical Area.
2.      Screening all proposals to form new WGs that are brought forward by 
BOFs to make sure that they are supported by required documentation and 
their technical focus is vectored towards the goals and objectives of CCSDS.
3.      Making recommendations to the CESG concerning approval for the 
chartering and formation of WGs and for the authorization of BOFs.
4.      Making recommendations to the CESG for the progression of WG 
documents as they approach key decision gates along the various 
standardization tracks.
5.      Demonstrating and certifying that formal review procedures have 
been properly followed prior to recommending the advancement of a document.
6.      Communicating the dates of CESG meetings to the WG and BOF chairs 
so that they may schedule the completion of their work prior to this time.
7.      Notifying the WG and BOF chairs as to how and when their work is to 
be presented to the AD for review.
8.      Deciding if Area meetings are to be held. If so, setting the date, 
location and agenda for each Area meeting. It is strongly recommended that 
periodic face-to-face co-located meetings of the WGs and BOFs in a 
particular Area should be held in order to maximize opportunities for 
cross-pollination of ideas.
9.      Chairing Area meetings, ensuring that every WG or BOF presents its 
work in a satisfactory manner and that Area decisions are made through a 
process of consensus.
10.     Ensuring that all Area work follows the set of architectural 
principles agreed by the CESG and is properly synchronized with the smooth 
evolution of the large installed base of CCSDS-compatible mission support 
infrastructure.
11.     Working with the WG and BOF chairs to prepare detailed reports of 
overall status, progress and problems for presentation at CESG meetings. As 
necessary, the AD may request specific WG or BOF chairs to attend CMC 
meetings to discuss difficult issues.
12.     Verifying that all Standards Track documents are subject to the 
proper process of formal Agency review by the WG chair.
13.     Maintaining the Area master-tracking list of relevant 
specifications as they progress through the standardization tracks.
14.     Making recommendations to the CESG to re-convene a WG to refresh a 
standard that has been finalized and deployed into operational use, and for 
which the WG is no longer active.
15.     Making sure that technical cross-pollination occurs among the 
various WGs. This will be accomplished by seeking frequent opportunities to 
hold Area meetings.
16.     Seeking opportunities to advertise and promulgate the work of the 
Area by alerting WG and BOF chairs to opportunities to publish results or 
participate in relevant conferences.
Unlike many Standards Development Organizations (SDOs), where the staffing 
of Working Groups is purely voluntary, CCSDS operates in a mode whereby the 
key staff required to execute a particular project are specifically paid by 
their parent Agencies. This had led us into the mode where each Area not 
only defines the technical scope and schedule of a particular WG, but also 
has been asked to "request" the human resources to do the work. The CMC 
then has to "respond" to that request by allocating the resources. The 
expectation is that if the expected resources are not allocated, the work 
will be re-scoped or abandoned. However, we are all familiar with the 
strange fact that quite often the requested resources are not allocated and 
yet the work magically gets done. Clearly, the Area Directors and WG chairs 
may not be good managers -  but they are wonderful magicians.

>At 12:13 AM 6/8/2005, Nestor.Peccia at esa.int wrote:
>We did in Athens a very nice Plan to get our resource matrix approved. i.e.
>Mid May 05:       CESG to send to CMC the Plan + associated resource matrix
>Mid June 05:      CMC to respond
>End July 05:      CMC / CESG to negotiate the Plan
>
>I believe we are a little bit delayed.... If AD's would work in the same 
>way on a real Project, the consequence is
>obvious ...==> "They would be fired"

Yes, we are about a month behind because, as you are aware, some Areas have 
been late in updating their WG charters. But people are busy and it's hard 
to "fire" them when they have other high priority work, particularly when 
CCSDS itself is magic - there is no "line organization", and there is no 
central budget that can be allocated like a project: it's all virtual. So 
we do the best that we can.

>If there is no corrective action taken, I recommend to abandon the 
>resource allocation. ... It is a waste of time time (at least for me). 
>CESG can simulate that it has resources, and CMC can simulate that gives 
>the CESG the requested resources
>and everybody would be happy, thinking that is a "good manager".

In this respect, I have come to agree with you. However, I do not think 
that we should "throw the baby out with the bath water" (I believe that's 
an old Italian saying?). Having an Operating Plan that contains the current 
charters and schedules of the WGs is essential, but it may indeed be a 
waste of time for everyone to go through the synthetic motions of the 
"request <==> allocation" process.

Instead, how about we do this:

1. Every Spring, the Operating Plan will be refreshed to reflect (via 
updated charters) the current technical planning of every approved WG. 
(BOFs will not be part of the Operating Plan.). The updated charters will 
define technical objectives and a schedule for delivering products, but 
will not ask for resources. The schedule will identify the milestones for 
at least 18-months ahead (i.e., until the winter of the following year).

2. The Operating Plan - without an associated resource request matrix - 
will be reviewed by the CMC. The CMC members each know how much budget they 
have at their disposal so they will each be asked to state the resource 
profile - who, at what staffing level per month - they are willing to 
assign to each WG for the following 18-months. That information - a 
resource allocation matrix - will be conveyed back to the CESG.

3. Based on that real assignment, the ADs and WG chairs can then figure out 
if the work can get done as planned.

I think that we finally have all of the charters updated and so I will ask 
Tom Gannett to send me the draft of the new Operating Plan just as soon as 
he has it compiled. Greg and I will then check it for overall consistency 
and will send it to the CMC as soon as we can - I hope by the middle of 
next week. Then we can see what comes back from the CMC.

Best regards
Adrian
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg-all/attachments/20050608/742455e8/attachment.html