| FAST HOME | HELP | WHAT'S NEW | COMMENTS | SEARCH |
| Toolsets/Revising AMS & FAST/ASAG Minutes
ASAG Minutes 01/29/01 Meeting Next Meeting:
Attendees:
(p) = primary member, (a) = alternate member, (ad) = adhoc member, (xs) = executive secretary Visitors:
Highlights:
General: D. Lankford welcomed everyone to the 3rd Anniversary of the ASAG and mentioned D. Sirk should be back for the February meeting. Items Not Related to Change Requests: IPLT Feedback. D. Lankford attended the latest IPLT meeting and stated a notable item that came out of it was a briefing on the LMP by D. Woodson. They were presented with a draft document and in two weeks D. Woodson will return to further explain and address their concerns. It was understood that the IPLT seems to agree in concept with LMP, however, they are unsure as to how all the current efforts (LMP, portfolio management, terminal business unit, etc.) will come together and how LMP will be affected. Terminal Business Unit (TBU). J. Trenholm discussed the status of the team developing TBU. He mentioned they have an outline of what the organization should look like and how TBU will operate in a field environment. He stated the concept is good – going to one person for a decision. He stated they wanted to get something in place before the Chief Operating Officer gets here so they can give him/her an outline instead of just concepts. FAB. J. Baker mentioned that Joanne Kansier has stepped down as the FAB lead chairperson and Mike Harrison has taken over this position. Change Requests: 01-14, Procurement Specification Format. Tom Nagle, AND-4, presented the change. This change proposes guidance to use a specific format for performance specifications to be used in contracting for equipment. He stated that working with the NEXCOM PT it became apparent that they needed a template for developing contractor level specifications. T. Nagle stated they would like to put this specification format into FAST as guidance and also in the statement of work generator. This would help the IPTs prepare performance specifications by providing an outline of performance areas to address and flexibility to tailor for the specific hardware item. It was asked if any PTs, besides NEXCOM, have reviewed this document. T. Nagle said all of the communications PTs have tried and like it. It was also reviewed by the Systems Engineering Council. A concern was raised about how to encourage use of the specification format. T. Nagle, said the best way is to make it as easy as possible to use and have it accessible in FAST. It was recommended T. Nagle contact Gordon Shaffer to ask for AUA review of the document and provide comments. ASAG endorses the change pending G. Shaffer’s comments. ACTION: (1) T. Nagle send document to G. Shaffer for comment. (2) J. Long check with T. Nagle and G. Shaffer in 2 weeks to determine status of change. If okay, forward for approval. 01-05, Initial and Final Investment Decisions (JRC 2a-2b) Evan Soffer and Dan Kinder both from ASD-400 presented an update to the change. They received one comment from E. Turcich in reference to language on the strategic support group (SSG) and incorporated this into the change. They stated this change is consistent with IPLT guidance. ASAG endorsed the change. ACTION: (1) J. Long forward change for approval. 01-21, System Safety Management Plan, 01-22, System Safety Handbook, 01-23, System Safety & Section 2.9.13 (policy), and 01-24, System Safety & FAST Documents (guidance). Scott VanBuren, ASD-100 and Dave Balderston, ASY-300 presented the change. They stated they are taking a three-part strategy to system safety and the AMS. The first part is the "how to" which is the system safety handbook (SSH), the second part is the "who does what and when" system safety management plan (SSMP) and the third part is training. To date they have completed the SSH and SSMP and are about halfway through the training piece. The intended purpose of the SSMP is to tie together all system safety elements. The document presented is essentially an instructional manual/document for writing an SSMP. An actual SSMP should only be about 5-10 pages in length and S. VanBuren’s organization (ASD-100) is budgeted to support IPTs with writing the SSMP during the mission analysis and investment analysis phases. An in-depth discussion was held on the SSMP, primarily pertaining to where/how it belonged in FAST. It was determined that this would probably go into FAST as guidance like the IOT&E guidance, basically as reference material. The SSH would also be reference material and would be a link in FAST to the ASY-300 site where the handbook would be housed and ASY-300 will maintain the document. S. VanBuren also mentioned they compared the SSMP and SSH to documents in FAST. They determined there were places in these documents (MAP, IAP, ASP, IPP) which needed references to system safety. He acknowledged that in these documents would be the high-level system safety information and the actual plan would be done in separate document(s). For example, the deliverable, who will do it and when will be listed in the IPP and the actual deliverable will be in a separate document. ASAG endorsed the system safety handbook link in FAST to the ASY-300 site. ACTION: (1) S. VanBuren forward a red-line version of the FAST document changes (pertain to changes 01-23 and 01-24) to J. Long. (2) J. Long forward red-line version to ASAG members with a comment due date of two weeks later than date sent. (3) J. Long put changes 01-23, and 01-24 on February’s agenda for approval and 01-21 for further discussion. (4) J. Long forward the SSH (01-22) for approval. 01-10, Process Flowchart for Facility Consolidation. J. Trenholm presented this change. The basis of the change is to document the process flow that facilities management uses when acquiring a facility. This process flow is pre-investment analysis decision. He stated anything above $50 million will go through this process flow. Also, anything in the steady funding stream goes through the short process flow (up to the ATS assessment [mission need decision] is the same then it goes directly to "within funding stream", "acquisition review(s)", "follow FAST flows", "commission", and "In-Service Management". J. Trenholm stated the "how to’s" are in the APs 1 and 2. He mentioned the first four blocks of the process flowchart tells what the APs 1 and 2 require (to the left of ATS assessment). The ASAG members recommended J. Trenholm add additional information (background words) to make the process flow clearer. Or at least to add an introduction. ACTION: (1) J. Trenholm provide additional information and forward to ASAG members for review. (2) J. Long put this change on February’s for approval. 01-09, Acquisition Strategy Paper (ASP) Section 7, Physical Integration; 01-15, Requirements Document Section 4, Physical Integration, 01-18, Integrated Program Plan Section 7, Physical Integration. D. Lankford presented these changes on behalf of S. Freericks, ASU-140. The changes add clarity to how to address real estate in these documents. As a user of the documents S. Freericks realized the instructions did not make a lot of sense to her as a real estate specialist and therefore determined they should be changed to be clearer to any user. ASAG endorsed all three changes. ACTION: J. Long forward changes for approval. Future Meeting Schedule:
Pg. 1 ACTION ITEMS 1/29
Pg. 2 ACTION ITEMS 1/29
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||