|
|
|
|
|
|
| Toolseta/Revising AMS & FAST/ASAG Minutes
6/28/99 Meeting
Attendees:
Visitors:
General:
D. Sirk reminded everyone that the official start time for the meetings is 9:00 a.m. and requested members arrive in order to start on time.
D. Sirk mentioned she and J. Trenholm will be alternating attending the IPLT meetings. J. Trenholm said he attended the last IPLT meeting. He indicated he was put on the spot in that the ASAG agrees to help them. He said there is a lot of work that will probably be coming the ASAG’s way. It was discussed that any working groups the IPLT has the ASAG should have a linking member. This will help the ASAG be more on top of issues.
There was a discussion about an in-service review check-list. It was indicated that an ANS convened SNT was a prelude to bigger and better things to come and was not part of the in-service review check-list being discussed.
The ASAG members agreed that the ASAG needs to be more connected with the IPLT and what they are doing. D. Sirk mentioned if there are any issues that any of the members are aware of that the ASAG should be aware of, please make sure to let the members know. These can be IPLT issues or not. The ASAG is interested in being as proactive as possible.
New Member(s):
Jeff Yarnell is replacing Lucy Kruse as an alternate for In-Service Management (Jerry Trenholm).
Items Not Related to Change Requests:
Converting FAA Orders to Guidance. D. Sirk asked the status of Orders. No one made any comments at this time on them, therefore, D. Sirk is assuming there are no problems and that they are being taken care of. D. Sirk also mentioned that we would be sending an electronic listing of the orders with revised ASAG POCs. This list will also have a question as to the status of the orders and she requested everyone responsible return it with the status column completed.
ACTION: (1) J. Long send all ASAG members an electronic copy of the orders list. (2) All applicable ASAG Members return a copy of the orders list to D. Sirk with the status column completed no later than the July meeting (7/26/99).
ASAG Change Cover Sheet. J. Long presented the options for handling the ASAG change cover sheet and requested the ASAG’s approval on which way would work best for them. The options were as follows:
(1) Use the ASAG cover sheet originally designed and the sheet provided by the initiator. Provide the ASAG with both of these.
(2) Use the sheet provided by the initiator and add the applicable data the ASAG needs to have in addition to the other information. This can be one of two formats – one from a template and the other from the on-line form.
The ASAG approved using the second option. Therefore, for each change request the coversheet will be in one of the two formats with the ASAG specific information added at both the top and bottom. The only request was to add a potential briefing date as part of the ASAG information, if a briefing of the change request is expected.
A-76 Guidance & FAIR. L. John informed the members that there will be a change coming in reference to this. She stated they want to get it into the August FAST update. She indicated the change pertains to an OMB change to A-76 which mentions FAIR. The ASAG agreed that this change would be okay to process without providing the ASAG with a presentation.
Contractor Depot Level Support (CDLS) Template. This was mentioned in that comments were due to A. Harball by June 15th. D. Sirk mentioned she was not aware of any comments.
Mission Analysis/Investment Analysis. This was mentioned in that comments were due to A. Harball by June 15th. D. Sirk mentioned she was not aware of any comments.
Change Requests:
99-18: AMS & IPDS Section 1.4. D. Woodson presented a replacement for the original change pertaining to AMS & IPDS. He provided a synopsis of the revised/replaced change. He said that S. Zaidman’s primary concern was that programs were being implemented without JRC approval. The initial proposal for this change undid some of what the AMS is about and removed some of the basic functions. The revised/replaced proposal now identifies what is a program and parts of Chapter 2. D. Woodson reiterated this replaces the IPLT’s original change proposal.
It was asked if the IPLT has to “bless off” on this version before the ASAG can act on it. D. Sirk indicated they did not and that as soon as the ASAG acts on it, the IPLT will be informed of the status/result. The agreement between the IPLT and the ASAG is that the loop will be closed once the ASAG notified the IPLT that it is a done deal. She also stated the IPLT’s guidance was to “forget what we did and do what makes sense”.
The intent of the JRC was for them to improve large scale programs. This version of the change proposal tries to put a range around what the JRC approval would be > $50 million to $1 billion dollars. There is an upper limit of $1 billion because we don’t want $10 billion dollar programs. The lower limit of $50 million is indicated so that some of the “little” stuff won’t have to go to the JRC.
D. Woodson described each paragraph identified in the revised version of the change. It was asked if Cathy Routon’s concerns (regional) were addressed? D. Woodson indicated he just got them today and they would be incorporated later.
A discussion was held in reference to the Resource Management Committee (RMC). This included questioning if they need to be addressed as part of this change. It was indicated that maybe the RMC could be incorporated into section 1.4.4.
It was mentioned that we’re still trying to determine if programs should be separated by type of money. Also, trying to definitize what is excluded from JRC approval in Chapter 2. AMS Chapter 2 covers everything and states what the JRC must see. Right now it says the JRC must see every program, and with this change proposal we are trying to quantify/define that they really need to see high level programs only. Only the “buckets” that wouldn’t go to the JRC are identified in Section 1.4.4.
The general idea is to raise everything to the highest level and leave management of program money to the lower levels. By putting in just a reference to OPS dollars we are not accomplishing much of anything therefore we need to incorporate reference to the RMC. When the JRC meets it’s like it’s an F&E, R&D group and OPS is not addressed.
There was a discussion on revamping OPS and the result was that they thought doing that might help fix the part of the AMS this is designed to improve. The members indicated what is needed right now is practical day-to-day advice as to what needs to go to the JRC.
ACTION: (1) D. Woodson provide ASAG with a copy of the OPS report. (2) All ASAG members provide comments to D. Woodson no later than July 16th with any new language suggestions the members might have. (3) J. Long put this change on JULY’s agenda for continued discussion and approval if possible.
99-28: Safety Risk Management. Michael Harrison, ASD-100, presented this change to the ASAG. He had with him Bruce Henry, ARX-100, Dave Balderson, ASU-300, and Gene Rice, ARX-100/Analysis Tech. M. Harrison stated there is a disconnect with safety risk. Early in the process the hazard risk needs to be identified and any time a safety risk can be included in the acquisition process it is better than after the item has been acquired. M. Harrison said they have had a meeting with ARR and ASY to review and work this issue. The initial focus was on data link and it is now expanded to include other safety risks.
The change proposal is on how to change the AMS language. There are templates which in the next 2 to 10 weeks will be worked to get the Mission Analysis and Investment Analysis parts to incorporate safety risk mitigation into their process. This will help identify the risk up front. We need to get these risks in front of senior managers and work off the risks early in the process. We need to be able to show that a program is safe early on.
M. Harrison stated they have briefed both the IMTs and 6 or 7 IPTs on this. He said his group is quite confident their approach will work based on feedback received so far.
A question was raised about adding this to the guiding principles. This seems more like a process than a guiding principle. M. Harrison stated he would hope that not all processes become guiding principles, however, we feel this is a key principle because it is key to the FAA. Meaning one of the FAA’s main goals is safety.
M. Harrison stated if the Mission Need Statement doesn’t address safety implications there are only 2 areas covered. Within AMS and within the IPTs, most emphasis is programmatic risk and not system risk. He stated we should see failure modes, what happens when it doesn’t work are there contingency modes, etc. He mentioned this is up front work.
By the time a program gets to In-Service Management they have a set of safety risks identified and it’s more a process of tracking them at this time and most contractors work off MILSTD 882. NATCA has agreed they will abide by what we determine on our committees.
M. Harrison has consistency concerns as safety risk is a sub-element in some areas and is on it’s own in others. He indicated we need to make it it’s own process and have it here (2.9.13) as a sub-element. Proposed section 2.9.13 is a new area. Section 2.9.11 describes what system engineering does. Section 2.9.13.1 will be a separate section for safety risk and will have sub-sections on information security and physical security. We need a stable set of requirements to measure against. The risk section in the AMS is to provide guidance for system security.
M. Harrison stated a lot of organizations are involved in the safety risk business. If the programs are done right safety risk is done on the front-end and the applicable organizations are involved at the point. He stated the FAA is approaching safety risk much in the same way as DOD which retained MILSTD 882.
M. Harrison stated the more important system safety objective is “safety is designed into the system in a cost-effective manner”. To do this identifying safety risk up front is key. If the risk is great then a decision needs to be made as to whether to proceed with the system or not. It’s okay to have a few faults and risks, however, they need to be managed. M. Harrison stated they are not as worried about the resource side as they are with the identification of safety risks.
The question was raised if any assessments were made to try this out. M. Harrison stated there were four dry-runs with experts within their own organization. Also, five other tests have been done. It was also asked when the IPLT was briefed. M. Harrison stated around February 1999 and that they hope to brief them again shortly.
The concern was raised that this will add a lot of time to the Investment Analysis and make some things unaffordable. M. Harrison said that’s not really what’s happened. He stated it is less expensive to do this up front.
ACTION: (1) All ASAG members review and provide comments by July 16th to Michael Harrison and “cc” David Woodson. (2) J. Long put this change on the JULY’s agenda for continued discussion and approval if possible.
99-30: Agreements. L. John presented this change and mentioned it has been in draft form for quite a while. She provided a handout that describes the need for a policy change. She mentioned FAA’s authority has been expanded beyond significantly. We can now enter into other transactions and cooperative agreements with private entities as well. However, the statutes didn’t do a couple things, such as expand Grant authority.
The guidance identifies three broad categories of agreements: (1) within DOT (intra-agency), (2) with other Federal agencies only (inter-agency), and (3) with anyone else. For cooperative agreements language we are locked into a definition of what these are. There is a statute which defines them.
In the change legal review is always required – this is included to ensure that the right agreement for the requirement is used. Also, it is agreed we can do other transactions for nonrecurring events.
L. John stated the biggest beneficiaries of this new authority are the regions. In answer to a question on training for this, she stated the lawyers provide the information required to the users and no formal training is currently planned. However, it can be incorporated into other training provided pertaining to the AMS.
The ASAG approved this change request.
ACTION: J. Long prepare endorsement and forward for approval.
99-31: FAA iCMM Process Improvement. Linda Ibrahim, AIO-200 re-presented this change to the ASAG. She worked with D. Lankford and L. John to reword this change. She stated she brought the reworded version of the change to the integrated process group and they were okay with it. She stated it is similar to the previous version, but changed enough that she feels the ASAG can agree to it. The primary intent of the change is still to incorporate iCMM.
L. Ibrahim went over the revisions and mentioned that this reworded version adds iCMM as an inclusion. L. John mentioned we want to keep specific references to a minimum within the AMS and this was a compromise.
This reworded version addresses policy issues and drops guidance information. A question was raised about redundancy in the wording – is it okay to have redundancy between Section 1.8 and Section 1.14? L. John stated it was appropriate in this case.
There was a short discussion on the previous concerns pertaining to this change and it was mentioned that those who worked it took them into consideration.
The ASAG approved this change request.
ACTION: J. Long prepare endorsement and forward for approval.
99-41: Revisions to Sections 1.9, 1.9.1, 1.9.2 and Appendix D. J. Long presented this change to the ASAG which is based on comparing the AMS policy with the ASAG Charter and ASAG Guidance. Based on the ASAG Charter and ASAG Guidance the AMS policy needed to be updated to incorporate the co-chair, a couple other items which the ASAG Charter and ASAG Guidance have that the policy does not and acronyms. This is to bring the three documents in line with each other.
The ASAG approved this change request.
ACTION: J. Long prepare endorsement and forward for approval.
Next Meeting:
July 26, 1999 9:00-12:00 FOB 10A, Conference Room 5AB
Future Meeting Schedule:
ACTION ITEMS
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||