[CESG] CCSDS Startegic Plan / Responses to individual question on Strategic Plan

[Gian.Paolo.Calzolari at esa.int]

Nestor,
        here below my answers/comments to your detailed questions.

> Is the Tactical Plan the CWE View showing Charters, Projects, 
> Resources, Schedule ? 
> My opinion: Yes 

I agree that the collection of the following 3 items (as generable from 
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/default.aspx )
1) Operating Plan ( 
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Charters/OperatingPlan.aspx?Source=http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm 
) (#)
2) Existing Projects ( 
http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/AllItems.aspx )
3) Resource Matrix ( http://cwe.ccsds.org/fm/Lists/Projects/Resources.aspx 
)
can be considered the CCSDS Tactical Plan (with each individual schedule 
viewable via #2 above)

(#) Possibly including the list of projects associated to each charter as 
per proposed editorial improvement.

> Is the CCSDS Strategic Roadmap the Strategic Plan showing the 
> mapping between CCSDS Technical Goals, Area sub-goals and existing /
> at work / future recommended standards and practices ? 
> My opinion: Yes 

I tend to agree, but reversing the order; i.e.  we are going to build the 
CCSDS Strategic Plan identifying Area Goals and each Area Goal shall refer 
to one or more CCSDS Technical Goal and shall include a number of 
"products/works" with relevant forecast. Then  <Strategic Roadmap = 
Strategic Plan> with the possibility to represent it e.g. as a bar chart.


> Do we use a timeline or not ? (i.e. By 2018 ....., By 2020 ..., By 2022 
....?
> My opinion : To be discussed. I got mixed opinions from CMC and 
> CESG.. If we leave them, CMC will recommend to have a milestone 
> definition and a timeline graphic. 

Assuming that we agree to build the CCSDS Strategic Plan identifying Area 
Goals mapped (1:n) to CCSDS Technical Goals and including "products/works" 
with relevant forecast, then generating a bar chart would be an editorial 
work (to be done e.g. by Secretariat niot by CESGers).

> Do we show interdependencies between WGs and Projects in the Strategic 
Plan ?
> My opinion: No (too cumbersome) 

I agree. It would be too cumbersome to show interdependencies.

> Do we show in our mapping (CCSDS tech. goals, Area goals, BB/MB) all
> books to be produced in the future ? 
> My opinion : Yes  (if for projects after 2018 we can leave the 
> resources out when defining them in the  CWE) 

As mentioned also somewhere below in this mail, I prefer to speak about 
"products/works".
In some case the identification of the precise books to be produced is 
impossible at this point in time.
In other cases the addition of Green Book (if required) would increase the 
burden of the work to be done, without real benefit.
For some books identified but planned to start later, the identification 
of resources may be impossible at the moment.
I think for each Area Goal we need to identify the "products/works" and 
there I see the following possibilities
- all data clear, CWE Project exists with all data including resources
- some data clear, CWE Project may exist (in draft form for later 
approval) with some data (e.g. resources still TBD)
- most data unclear; i.e. field of work defined but details TBD
With this kind of classification, the production of the <<Strategic Plan 
identifying Area Goals mapped (1:n) to CCSDS Technical Goals and including 
"products/works" with relevant forecast>> should be a fair task.

> Do we show  in our mapping (CCSDS tech. goals, Area goals, BB/MB) 
> all books produced in the past ? 
> My opinion: To be discussed   In case of an existing FW needed for 
> the definition of future standard, not showing them implies a 
> partial view of the functional capability (but adds complexity to the 
Plan) 

This should be fairly easy pointing to CCSDS publication page(s).
However this should be presented "for information/documentation" only and 
existing Green Books could be shown too.
It should also be remarked that some existing books may not bee mappable 
to an "open" Area Goal.

> Do we also include GBs ? 
> My opinion: To be discussed 

In general Green Books are functional/support to Blue/Magenta Books.
There are a few exceptions where this is not the case.
I would recommend not showing Green Books that are functional/support to 
Blue/Magenta Books, but including a general statement on the approach that 
each Blue/Magenta Book may have one or more (not mentioned) Green Books 
associated.
Conversely, exceptions should be mentioned. 

> How do we represent the mapping ? and once the option is selected who
> will do the job (CESG, technical support, ?) 

IMO, Production of the bulk of the <<Strategic Plan identifying Area Goals 
mapped (1:n) to CCSDS Technical Goals and including "products/works" with 
relevant forecast>> should be a CESG task, other frills should be left to 
"secretariat".

-----------------
Here below my opinion about your proposed options.
In general I would avoid the presentation as WinWord table for easier 
maintenance and tracking.
In fact, WinWord track changes work quite badly for tables and sometimes 
it is not easy to identify real changes.
Your Option 1a/1b) could become something as e.g.
MOIMS-Goal-2            (could be used as section header)
Description of goal......
Related CCSDS Strategic Goals:  2, 3, 6
Existing standards:     List........    (if we agree to include it, 
moreover could be moved to bottom to focus better on future)
Future works:           Navigation Message (2076, MIL-29) Pertubation 
Message (2093, MIL-87) List.......

> 
> Option 1a     [image removed] 

Very concise and effective.
The columns for existing standards may exclude the CCSDS acronym and the 
issue number for simplicity and further maintenance (i.e. 123.4-B instead 
of  "CCSDS 123.4-B-2".
The column for CWE Related project could be renamed to e.g. "future 
products/works" (*) as it is possible that a future work is implied by the 
goal but (one or more TBD) projects are yet undefined/to be created. Of 
course an alternative is that the column identifies "(current and future) 
related CWE Project". Note that the first approach would avoid showing 
Green Books that are functional/support to Blue/Magenta Books .
(*) I do not like this but I have no better suggestion.

> 
> Option 1b   [image removed] 
> 

Same comments as for Option 1a apply. 
Moreover, the need for showing the target date may easily rise from CMC.
I wonder about the need of "MIL ID" and the implied burden of numbering 
etc..

> Option 2 (with text separated in other section)   [image removed] 

I do not like it.

> 
> Option 3  (with text separated in other section) [image removed] 

I do not like it.

> 
> Option 4    > As CMC proposes  (with text separated in other section) 
[image removed] 

The table is basically a (simpler) subset of option 3 and simplicity is 
attractive.
However, as option 2 and 3, listing individual (running/expected) projects 
would make the table very long.
The table could become more attractive if the first column would list - 
instead of the Milestone ID) the Goal ID that may include a set to 
Projects/Works.
Actually this is more or less the approach taken by the bar chart that - 
as far as I understand - CMC would require within Option 4 together with 
the table. 
Of course the bar chart is very attractive, as long as this will be 
produced by somebody else   :o)


> 
> Please let me know your opinion 
> 
 Done!

In conclusion, CESGers could prepare input for the Strategic Planning 
organized in Area Goals structured  e.g. as follows
MOIMS-Goal-2
Description of goal......
Related CCSDS Strategic Goals:  2, 3, 6
Future works (with forecast):           Navigation Message (2076, MIL-29); 
Pertubation Message (2093, MIL-87); List.......
Existing standards:                     List........   (OPTIONAL)
and Secretariat could add more tables, bar charts etc as needed to 
finalize the document.

Still the work for CESGers will not be trivial, but at the end may be 
simpler/less that reworking the actual contents with other approaches.
For this reason I refrain to comment on the current version of the 
Strategic Plan as I think it is better to agree the common approach and 
eventually rewrite the document according to agreed guidelines/format.

I hope this helps the discussion.

Regards 

Gian Paolo

This message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee or addressees only. The unauthorised disclosure, use, dissemination or copying (either in whole or in part) of its content is not permitted. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. Emails can be altered and their integrity cannot be guaranteed by the sender.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ccsds.org/pipermail/cesg/attachments/20130731/cbea3f04/attachment.htm