Issue 11606: Figure 3-3: AcV-2 View Example (updm-ftf) Source: Software Centre of Excellence, Rolls-Royce Div. (Mr. Francis Thom, Fran.Thom(at)BTInternet.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: This is not an example of an AcV-2 View See www.modaf.com for an example Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 11, 2007: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== s is issue 11606 Title: Figure 3-3: AcV-2 View Example Source: ARTiSAN (Mr. Francis Thom, Francis.Thom@ARTiSANsw.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Minor Summary: This is not an example of an AcV-2 View See www.modaf.com for an Subject: Resolution of Issue 11606 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 16:37:44 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Resolution of Issue 11606 Thread-Index: AchtlZekygDJqvUmQ8yUtutC5GVHeg== From: "Thom, Francis" To: "Fred Mervine" Cc: Fred, If you do not want to use the MOD.s example of an AcV-2 here is one we produced. If it is not clear enough for publication please let us know and we can automatically create one. This shows the DLOD statuses of two projects at different development phases (described in the optional key where the project phases are end0user configurable and defined within the Acquisition View). Note Projects can be stopped and started i.e. ProjectMilestones are not contiguous - Project 1 (e.g. Light Armoured Vehicle) has a gap in its development plan although is delivered ahead of Project 2 (e.g. Future Rapid Effect System). This reflects an enterprise reassessing acquisition plans in light of budgets . I write from experience having worked on a project that was stopped for 1-year and then restarted so that the budgets could be temporarily re-assigned to another project. I trust this helps. Fran To: "Thom, Francis" Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Resolution of Issue 11606 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 12:23:39 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 02/12/2008 13:24:18, Serialize complete at 02/12/2008 13:24:18 This particular issue identifies a piece of work that needs to be updated in the spec, but is way beyond the scope of the FTF. The example model is out of date and needs to be re-done by people who have a lot of experience on the DoD/MOD side. Also it will be even more out of date after the FTF - for example in this diagram here, DLOD is used, but MOD no longer uses that, and we've agreed to remove it from UPDM. That is why I put this on the deferred - not really the specific diagram, but the whole issue of the example. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 "Thom, Francis" 02/12/08 08:37 AM To Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, If you do not want to use the MOD..s example of an AcV-2 here is one we produced. If it is not clear enough for publication please let us know and we can automatically create one. This shows the DLOD statuses of two projects at different development phases (described in the optional key where the project phases are end0user configurable and defined within the Acquisition View). Note Projects can be stopped and started i.e. ProjectMilestones are not contiguous - Project 1 (e.g. Light Armoured Vehicle) has a gap in its development plan although is delivered ahead of Project 2 (e.g. Future Rapid Effect System). This reflects an enterprise reassessing acquisition plans in light of budgets . I write ffrom experience having worked on a project that was stopped for 1-year and then restarted so that the budgets could be temporarily re-assigned to another project. I trust this helps. Fran Reply-To: From: "Ian Bailey" To: "'Fred Mervine'" , "'Thom, Francis'" Cc: Subject: RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 08:40:37 -0000 Organization: Model Futures X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AchttjDIomFknN3iQLWBCyE2M9xzWgAZDZWw Fred, Fran, The example looks valid to me. The text is illegible at that resolution so I can.t be 100% certain it.s pukka, but it looks good. Also, I.m not sure where Fred got the idea that MOD doesn.t use DLOD . it.s a concept developed by MOD for use in acquisition programmes. The DLODs have changed a lot over the last few years . first there were 6, then 7 and now I believe there are eight. Fred may be confusing our requirement that DLODS not be hard-wired into UPDM. Our reasons for this are: 1) They keep changing 2) They are very nebulous and imprecise concepts . hence it would be a mistake to tie them into anything specific in the profile. It.s very hard to draw a boundaries around parts of the architecture for each of the 7 lines, and different people would draw the boundaries in different places. At first glance, it seems to be a great thing to want to do . linking elements in the architecture with the lines of development. However, as soon as you think about how it will be used (you might want to do some thinking about how UPDM might be used) you realise that they are nothing but logical threads through an acquisition programme. For these reasons, we made it quite clear at the Burlingame meeting that UPDM would not be MODAF compliant if it attempted to model DLODs (or DOTMLPF) in an explicit way. Regards From: Fred Mervine [mailto:fmervine@us.ibm.com] Sent: 12 February 2008 20:24 To: Thom, Francis Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Resolution of Issue 11606 This particular issue identifies a piece of work that needs to be updated in the spec, but is way beyond the scope of the FTF. The example model is out of date and needs to be re-done by people who have a lot of experience on the DoD/MOD side. Also it will be even more out of date after the FTF - for example in this diagram here, DLOD is used, but MOD no longer uses that, and we've agreed to remove it from UPDM. That is why I put this on the deferred - not really the specific diagram, but the whole issue of the example. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 "Thom, Francis" 02/12/08 08:37 AM To Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, If you do not want to use the MOD.s example of an AcV-2 here is one we produced. If it is not clear enough for publication please let us know and we can automatically create one. This shows the DLOD statuses of two projects at different development phases (described in the optional key where the project phases are end0user configurable and defined within the Acquisition View). Note Projects can be stopped and started i.e. ProjectMilestones are not contiguous - Project 1 (e.g. Light Armoured Vehicle) has a gap in its development plan although is delivered ahead of Project 2 (e.g. Future Rapid Effect System). This reflects an enterprise reassessing acquisition plans in light of budgets . I write from experience having worked on a project that was stopped for 1-year and then restarted so that the budgets could be temporarily re-assigned to another project. I trust this helps. Fran Subject: RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:15:07 -0000 X-MS-Has-Attach: yes X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Resolution of Issue 11606 Thread-Index: AchttjDIomFknN3iQLWBCyE2M9xzWgAZDZWwAAWCZ7A= From: "Thom, Francis" To: , "Fred Mervine" Cc: Ian, Fred, Just to confirm, we have prototyped a LOD Status (removed the .D. as we believe UPDM can be used out of a military context), which is end-user configurable (the colours relating to No Outstanding Issues, Manageable Issues, Critical Issues, Unknown Issues, and Not Required are hard-wired but we believe these cover the actual status of a LOD however the end-users wishes to define them). The previous example AcV-2 is based on the CADMID cycle with the current MOD DLOD statuses; it could just as easily be configured for DOTMLPF. We also believe that the configuration of the project phases and LOD should be considered a mandated part of AV-1 (possibly AV-2 as well) to facilitate interoperability. Leaving LOD Status for an RTF implies only a partial solution for the AcV-2 Diagram in the first release of the UPDM Specification. It was eloquently pointed out during the workshop we hosted at the conference in London that .a model without strategic and acquisition views is only a systems model, not an enterprise model. (no names, but the gentleman who mentioned this was from the US and very familiar of the DoDAF). Attached is a zipped-up .bmp file for clarity (apologies for those who can not receive .zip files, we can put this on our ftp site if necessary) please note the .AcV Diagram Key. is optional and as for the pink background, well, we.re open to suggestions here. Fran -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Bailey [mailto:ian@modelfutures.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:41 AM To: 'Fred Mervine'; Thom, Francis Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, Fran, The example looks valid to me. The text is illegible at that resolution so I can.t be 100% certain it.s pukka, but it looks good. Also, I.m not sure where Fred got the idea that MOD doesn.t use DLOD . it.s a concept developed by MOD for use in acquisition programmes. The DLODs have changed a lot over the last few years . first there were 6, then 7 and now I believe there are eight. Fred may be confusing our requirement that DLODS not be hard-wired into UPDM. Our reasons for this are: 1) They keep changing 2) They are very nebulous and imprecise concepts . hence it would be a mistake to tie them into anything specific in the profile. It.s very hard to draw a boundaries around parts of the architecture for each of the 7 lines, and different people would draw the boundaries in different places. At first glance, it seems to be a great thing to want to do . linking elements in the architecture with the lines of development. However, as soon as you think about how it will be used (you might want to do some thinking about how UPDM might be used) you realise that they are nothing but logical threads through an acquisition programme. For these reasons, we made it quite clear at the Burlingame meeting that UPDM would not be MODAF compliant if it attempted to model DLODs (or DOTMLPF) in an explicit way. Regards From: Fred Mervine [mailto:fmervine@us.ibm.com] Sent: 12 February 2008 20:24 To: Thom, Francis Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Resolution of Issue 11606 This particular issue identifies a piece of work that needs to be updated in the spec, but is way beyond the scope of the FTF. The example model is out of date and needs to be re-done by people who have a lot of experience on the DoD/MOD side. Also it will be even more out of date after the FTF - for example in this diagram here, DLOD is used, but MOD no longer uses that, and we've agreed to remove it from UPDM. That is why I put this on the deferred - not really the specific diagram, but the whole issue of the example. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 "Thom, Francis" 02/12/08 08:37 AM To Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, If you do not want to use the MOD.s example of an AcV-2 here is one we produced. If it is not clear enough for publication please let us know and we can automatically create one. This shows the DLOD statuses of two projects at different development phases (described in the optional key where the project phases are end0user configurable and defined within the Acquisition View). Note Projects can be stopped and started i.e. ProjectMilestones are not contiguous - Project 1 (e.g. Light Armoured Vehicle) has a gap in its development plan although is delivered ahead of Project 2 (e.g. Future Rapid Effect System). This reflects an enterprise reassessing acquisition plans in light of budgets . I write from experience having worked on a project that was stopped for 1-year and then restarted so that the budgets could be temporarily re-assigned to another project. I trust this helps. Fran To: "Thom, Francis" Cc: ian@modelfutures.com, uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006 From: Fred Mervine Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2008 15:21:47 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM115/03/M/IBM(Release 8.0|August 02, 2007) at 02/13/2008 16:21:49, Serialize complete at 02/13/2008 16:21:49 This is issue # 12025 the MODAF Meta-Model specifically does not mention the Defence Lines of Development (which are a UK only concept) so as to allow a more generic mechanism for dealing with other project thread approaches . e.g. thee US DoD DOTMLPF approach. Furthermore, each line of development is specified in the UPDM profile. MOD has recently changed the number of lines of development, and there is no reason to assume this will not happen again. THis was one of th e issues submitted by the Swedish Army. Assuming that there is only one standard MODAF, and that the Swedish Army is responding with MODAF in mind, we assumed that they were correct in saying that DLOD is NOT in the MODFA. In any case. In any case, the DLOD related items were voted to be removed form UPDM. In general, the example, which is non normative, needs to be updated to be in line with V 1.0 and is thus work for the RTF. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 "Thom, Francis" 02/13/08 05:15 AM To , Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 Ian, Fred, Just to confirm, we have prototyped a LOD Status (removed the ..D.. as we believe UPDM can be used out of a military context), which is end-user configurable (the colours relating to No Outstanding Issues, Manageable Issues, Critical Issues, Unknown Issues, and Not Required are hard-wired but we believe these cover the actual status of a LOD however the end-users wishes to define them). The previous example AcV-2 is based on the CADMID cycle with the current MOD DLOD statuses; it could just as easily be configured for DOTMLPF. We also believe that the configuration of the project phases and LOD should be considered a mandated part of AV-1 (possibly AV-2 as well) to facilitate interoperability. Leaving LOD Status for an RTF implies only a partial solution for the AcV-2 Diagram in the first release of the UPDM Specification. It was eloquently pointed out during the workshop we hosted at the conference in London that ..a model without strategic and acquisition views is only a systems model, not an enterprise model. (no names, but the gentleman who mentioned this was from the US and very familiar of the DoDAF). Attached is a zipped-up .bmp file for clarity (apologies for those who can not receive .zip files, we can put this on our ftp site if necessary) please note the ..AcV Diagram Key.. is optional and as for the pink background, well, we..re open to suggestions here. Fran -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ian Bailey [mailto:ian@modelfutures.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:41 AM To: 'Fred Mervine'; Thom, Francis Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: RE: Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, Fran, The example looks valid to me. The text is illegible at that resolution so I can..t be 100% certain it..s pukka, but it looks good. Also, I..m not sure where Fred got the idea that MOD doesn..t use DLOD . it..s a conccept developed by MOD for use in acquisition programmes. The DLODs have changed a lot over the last few years .. first there were 6, then 7 and now I believe there are eight. Fred may be confusing our requirement that DLODS not be hard-wired into UPDM. Our reasons for this are: 1) They keep changing 2) They are very nebulous and imprecise concepts . hence it would be a mistake to tiee them into anything specific in the profile. It..s very hard to draw a boundaries around parts of the architecture for each of the 7 lines, and different people would draw the boundaries in different places. At first glance, it seems to be a great thing to want to do . linking elements in the architecture with the lines of development. However, as soon as you think about how it will be used (you might want to do some thinking about how UPDM might be used) you realise that they are nothing but logical threads through an acquisition programme. For these reasons, we made it quite clear at the Burlingame meeting that UPDM would not be MODAF compliant if it attempted to model DLODs (or DOTMLPF) in an explicit way. Regards From: Fred Mervine [mailto:fmervine@us.ibm.com] Sent: 12 February 2008 20:24 To: Thom, Francis Cc: uPDM-ftf@omg.org Subject: Re: Resolution of Issue 11606 This particular issue identifies a piece of work that needs to be updated in the spec, but is way beyond the scope of the FTF. The example model is out of date and needs to be re-done by people who have a lot of experience on the DoD/MOD side. Also it will be even more out of date after the FTF - for example in this diagram here, DLOD is used, but MOD no longer uses that, and we've agreed to remove it from UPDM. That is why I put this on the deferred - not really the specific diagram, but the whole issue of the example. _______________________________ Fred Mervine Executive IT Architect Federal CTO Strategic Technology Team IBM Software Group Federal Phone: 707-468-8460 Cell: 707-816-6218 "Thom, Francis" 02/12/08 08:37 AM To Fred Mervine/San Jose/IBM@IBMUS cc Subject Resolution of Issue 11606 Fred, If you do not want to use the MOD..s example of an AcV-2 here is one we produced. If it is not clear enough for publication please let us know and we can automatically create one. This shows the DLOD statuses of two projects at different development phases (described in the optional key where the project phases are end0user configurable and defined within the Acquisition View). Note Projects can be stopped and started i.e. ProjectMilestones are not contiguous - Project 1 (e.g. Light Armoured Vehicle) has a gap in its development plan although is delivered ahead of Project 2 (e.g. Future Rapid Effect System). This reflects an enterprise reassessing acquisition plans in light of budgets . I write from experience having workked on a project that was stopped for 1-year and then restarted so that the budgets could be temporarily re-assigned to another project. I trust this helps. Fran example.