[Moims-dai] Latest Version of the Document

[D or C Sawyer]

All,

Regarding today’s discussion about the extent to which PMBOK names should be used in the document, I have the following thoughts.

It seemed to me that the document's intent was to use the PMBOK framework processes as the organizing framework for projects as we want to address them. Based on  David’s use of the PMBOK framework terms, as described in Section 2 that states we are organizing around "Process Groups”, there is a clear intent that our Process Groups are identical to the PMBOK Process Groups.  As the document says, however, our approach is to focus on associated information needed to ensure long term preservation. Section 2.3 says the way we are doing this is to combine the (PMBOK) Process Groups with Information Topics. The logic I see for this is that PMBOK defines the Process Groups in their document so we do  not have to address this.  Instead we give some examples of the kind of information that may be in a given Process Group and then go on to discuss the Information Areas or topics.

The suggestion today was to remove ‘Groups’ from the Process Groups to reduce intellectual property issues and to make it less confusing to the reader.  However it seems to me that in this case we would have to define what we mean by each “Process” which leads to the question as to what is different between our “Process” and PMBOK “Process Groups”.  It seems there are the following options:

1. There is no difference. The PMBOK Process Groups define a generic project that other projects can map to.  This document focuses on the additional information that needs to be captured and projects can look up the PMBOK standard for more details of the generic project implementation and execution.

2. There is a difference in that our “Processes” are defined in terms of the additional information that needs to be captured.  We make no reference to “Process Groups” and do not try to define a specific relationship with PMBOK.

3. There is a difference, which may be small,  in that our “Processes” are like the PMBOK “Process Groups” but we provide our own understanding of the Processes. We take from PMBOK the general organizing structure but redefine what those structural elements actually encompass.  We combine our “Processes” with the Information Areas, etc.

I think the document is currently aligned with option 1.  I think option 2 would be confusing as it doesn’t give a framework for a generic project to map to. Instead it goes right to talking about the additional information which is needed.  I think option 3 may be what some were thinking about in the discussion this morning.  If I were from PMBOK, I’d be upset that someone took my structure and redefined the content. That also applies to option 2.

Maybe there are other options, but for me I don’t see a better approach than option 1 as long as there is to be some relationship to PMBOK.  Of course I’ve not read the PMBOK so my view is limited.

cheers-
don




On Jun 14, 2016, at 11:12 AM, Mark Conrad <mark.conrad at nara.gov> wrote:

> Attached is the latest version of the document based on today's discussions.
> 
> Mark Conrad
> NARA Information Services
> IAS
> The National Archives and Records Administration
> Erma Ora Byrd Conference and Learning Center
> Building 494, Room 225
> 610 State Route 956
> Rocket Center, WV  26726
> 
> Phone: 304-726-7820
> Fax: 304-726-7802
> Email: mark.conrad at nara.gov 
> 
> <6NNxN-M-0x6-ILF-20160614.docx>_______________________________________________
> Moims-dai mailing list
> Moims-dai at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/moims-dai