Difference between revisions of "Talk:Business or Mission Analysis"
m (moved Talk:Stakeholder Requirements to Talk:Mission Analysis and Stakeholders Requirements: CM Request Approved 7/6/11: Title of version 0.25 was such as requested. "Mission Analysis" is an essential activity for system definition and to defi) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I have taken the liberty of adding one item to the list of Practical Considerations (#1). This is the most important consideration I bring from my industrial experiencce. | I have taken the liberty of adding one item to the list of Practical Considerations (#1). This is the most important consideration I bring from my industrial experiencce. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Garry Roedler: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Too many of the sections in the article read as a tutorial without specific citations or references provided. These should be summarized further with pointers to the literature. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Primary references should have links to the reference articles. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I corrected the title of the second section under Principles of Stakeholder Requirements - from "Mission Analysis and Operational Concept" to "Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations". The change agrees with the rest of the text and corrects the usage of the term. The Concept of Operations focuses on the enterprise or mission operations, whereas the Operational Concept focuses on the specific System level operations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I corrected the link to the System Requirements topic that was identified by Mary VanLeer. It was a missing "s" on the word "requirements". | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with the comment from Mary VanLeer about the tone being too DoD-centric. This is in large part due to the definitions used for Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations, both coming from DoD and using military terminology. I propose using the following defition of a Concept of Operations from Annex B of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 (or at least a summary of it): | ||
| + | "The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems, as black boxes, to forward the organization’s goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization’s assumptions or intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations of the business with using the system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of the future business and systems, for the project to understand its background." | ||
| + | |||
| + | Since ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 has been approved for publication, I suggest removing the "FDIS" annotation in the reference. | ||
| + | |||
| + | When referring to standards that are joint standards between ISO, IEC, and IEEE they should be identified using the prefix "ISO/IEC/IEEE", such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 for this article. | ||
Revision as of 10:47, 24 August 2011
Scott Jackson comment:
I have taken the liberty of adding one item to the list of Practical Considerations (#1). This is the most important consideration I bring from my industrial experiencce.
Garry Roedler:
Too many of the sections in the article read as a tutorial without specific citations or references provided. These should be summarized further with pointers to the literature.
Primary references should have links to the reference articles.
I corrected the title of the second section under Principles of Stakeholder Requirements - from "Mission Analysis and Operational Concept" to "Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations". The change agrees with the rest of the text and corrects the usage of the term. The Concept of Operations focuses on the enterprise or mission operations, whereas the Operational Concept focuses on the specific System level operations.
I corrected the link to the System Requirements topic that was identified by Mary VanLeer. It was a missing "s" on the word "requirements".
I agree with the comment from Mary VanLeer about the tone being too DoD-centric. This is in large part due to the definitions used for Mission Analysis and Concept of Operations, both coming from DoD and using military terminology. I propose using the following defition of a Concept of Operations from Annex B of ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 (or at least a summary of it): "The ConOps, at the organization level, addresses the leadership's intended way of operating the organization. It may refer to the use of one or more systems, as black boxes, to forward the organization’s goals and objectives. The ConOps document describes the organization’s assumptions or intent in regard to an overall operation or series of operations of the business with using the system to be developed, existing systems, and possible future systems. This document is frequently embodied in long-range strategic plans and annual operational plans. The ConOps document serves as a basis for the organization to direct the overall characteristics of the future business and systems, for the project to understand its background."
Since ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 has been approved for publication, I suggest removing the "FDIS" annotation in the reference.
When referring to standards that are joint standards between ISO, IEC, and IEEE they should be identified using the prefix "ISO/IEC/IEEE", such as ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 and ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 for this article.