9/27/99 Meeting

 Attendees:

Visitors:

General:

Jerry Trenholm announced that Joanne Eakin is replacing Julia Frasure-Sanchez as the ARX-200 representative.  Jacqueline Baker indicated Gary Breeden is her alternate.

Items Not Related to Change Requests:

IPLT Feedback.  Jerry Trenholm primarily had feedback from Steve Zaidman which pertains to change 99-18, therefore the discussion is combined with the change discussion in these minutes.  He also mentioned that at the IPLT level everyone supports what the ASAG does, below them he’s not so sure.

ASAG Roles.  David Lankford provided a handout with the following topic areas: (1) coordination/ development of changes, (2) internal communication, (3) external communication, (4) ASAG work groups and (5) ASAG time commitment.  This is in response to a discussion started at the August meeting and is a result of some brain storming.

An extensive discussion was held especially on the first topic area.  The discussion included the amount of coordination they would like to see for changes.  For example, some coordination should be done within the initiator’s own organization before it comes to the ASAG, but not necessarily beyond that and when an initiator sees a need for a change they should come to the ASAG with their idea.  It was mentioned that originally the members envisioned some coordination would be done before the ASAG gets involved, but there have been extremes of this with some of the changes presented.

The discussion continued about how proactive the ASAG should be within their own organizations, that the ASAG is trying to do too much with too little resources, and that the ASAG is “broken” as far as getting engaged is concerned.  It was suggested that the ASAG look at the whole AMS/FAST system and focus in on areas which need to be improved, rather than continuously accept random changes like they currently come in.

A concern was raised about the time commitment the ASAG position requires and/or can require.  It is acknowledged that being an ASAG member is an “other duty as assigned” for the majority if not all members.  Additional time committed to the position improve the process but maybe the solution is to work smarter instead to accomplish the same thing.

The FAAB (Federal Acquisition Advisory Board) was discussed as to what the ASAG members believed the FAAB’s role is versus what the ASAG’s role is.  Jacqueline Baker is a member of both and provided some helpful information.  The FAAB is an advisor to the Federal Acquisition Executive and is chartered.  The ASAG members are interested in seeing a copy of the FAAB’s Charter.  J. Baker stated that she suggested to Joann Kansier, the FAAB chairperson, that she contact David Lankford.  To date she has not therefore D. Lankford stated he would contact her.  One thing that may need to be done with the FAAB is to have a linking ASAG member like we have with the IPLT.

The question was raised about having a half-day off-site to continue this discussion.  This received positive feedback with the basis of the off-site being to review the ASAG Charter (which can be found in FAST), determine if the ASAG is doing what they said they would and if they still want to do what the Charter says.  In addition, any information on groups like the FAAB would be appreciated for the discussion.

ACTION:  (1) J. Baker provide a hard-copy of the FAAB Charter to J. Long for distribution to the ASAG.  (2) D. Lankford contact Joann Kansier.  (3) All members review the ASAG Charter.  (4) J. Long find an off-site location and potential dates.

Change Requests:

99-XX:  Logistics Policy.  Chuck Peterson, NISC/ARN-300, for Fred Bias, ARN-300, provided an information briefing on a change that will be coming shortly.  They are part of a team working on writing policy for logistics.  The initiative is to capture logistics issues and get them into the FAST website.  Current logistics policy equates to one page and Order 1800.58 still exists and both of these don’t “marry up”.  As logistics exist today, ILS (integrated logistics support) appears 3 times in FAST and NAILS is used in the Order (1800.58) and within obscure process guidance and flowcharts in FAST.  The approach with this new logistics policy is to capture all that is out there pertaining to logistics and update the AMS policy and guidance.

The team is taking a top to bottom approach and initially trying to decide how many processes there are out there.  Then they will develop a process guide.  There is an ILSP (integrated logistics support plan) which is an aid and tool.

To date ARN is the leading group of teams to do this work.  They are coordinating with ATS and have briefed the initiative to other organizations.  They need ARA and other organization support and concurrence to complete this project.

The question was raised about having AMS policy and an Order co-exist.  Initially that is the plan, but with time the Order will go away.  It was mentioned that ARA-1 and ATS-1 have an agreement that some directives will be maintained until everyone has access to the Internet.  This may be true, but it was suggested to put an expiration date on any directives.

The concern was raised that ILS is for NAS items only.  What about the logistics for non-NAS items?  The AMS is FAA policy not a NAS policy, therefore, it ILS is for NAS only how will this work?  The team acknowledged that non-NAS items are an issue as well and are willing to work them into the project.  However, right now the concentration is on NAS items.  It was recommended that the AMS policy and guidance be FAA-wide and that the Order be NAS specific if it is determined to still be necessary.  The ASAG offered to help with coordination of and formatting the ILS policy and guidance.

99-18:  AMS & IPDS/Section 1.4.  Jerry received Steve Zaidman’s feedback on this change.  S. Zaidman had only a few comments and the primary one was that he couldn’t tell if legal had reviewed the change or not.  Marty Phillips also reviewed it and then sent it on to S. Zaidman.  L. John stated S. Zaidman’s concern with this having legal review is that he is delegating responsibilities to the regions and he wants to be sure he is covered legally to do this.

An additional item from ATQ-1, Marty Phillips (IPLT Co-Lead) which relates to this is to have a work group to create specific guidance in FAST delineating regional, center, field funding blocks for approval and baselining by the JRC.  He needs to determine if the IPLT or the ASAG should charter this work group.

D. Woodson said he would incorporate the comments he has from the FAE into the change and send it out to the ASAG for review and comments.  If you have any comments, please also provide proposed rewrites with your rationale for the rewrite.

ACTION:  (1) D. Woodson provide revised change to J. Long no later than Friday, October 1^st to be distributed to the ASAG.  (2) J. Long forward revised change to the ASAG.  (3) All ASAG members review and provide comments on the change to D. Woodson no later than Tuesday, October 12^th.  (4)  All ASAG members review the item from M. Phillips and provide feedback to J. Trenholm no later than Tuesday, October 12^th.

99-47: Risk Management Policy.  D. Woodson provided a revised version of this change and a suggested paragraph 2.9.13.3 from Tom Laginja in ASD-110.  There was discussion as to what this change was really about versus all the risks and safety issues out there.  This change was triggered by the change on Systems Safety Management.  It was determined that Systems Safety Management and Risk Management are two different things and should be separate.

The discussion centered around the different types of security, risks, and safety.  It was noted that in the change document detailed guidance is referred to and the question was raised as to whether this guidance exists.  D. Woodson stated that the majority of it did not, it is a little premature to make this statement.

There is still some confusion on this change.  D. Woodson said he would send the ASAG a “clean” copy of the latest version of this change and requested the ASAG form a sub-team to work this change.  Therefore, it was determined that all ASAG members review and provide comments to D. Woodson no later than Tuesday, October 12^th and that on Thursday, October 14^th D. Woodson will have a meeting set up for all who provided comments and/or just want to attend.  At this meeting the change will be reviewed some more, comments addressed and a decision as to what to do next will be made.

ACTION:  (1) D. Woodson provide revised change to J. Long no later than Friday, October 1^st to be distributed to the ASAG.  (2) J. Long forward revised change to the ASAG.  (3) All ASAG members review and provide comments on the change to D. Woodson no later than Tuesday, October 12^th.  (4) D. Woodson set up a meeting for October 14^th to go over this change.

99-54: Flowchart for Developmental Hardware and Software.  D. Woodson presented this and stated it is a variation on the flowchart change that was approved earlier in the year.  This is the second of three process flowcharts.  The difference between this and the first one is that this is for developmental hardware and software the previous one was for software intensive programs.  In addition, he modified the language to take out any language dealing with COTS and make it developmental.

He stated there is a draft on-line in FAST now.  You can get to it through the following steps: FAST, choose solution implementation and then choose developmental hardware and software.  He provided a handout of the new activities.  The concern was raised that the activities use the term “PT (product team)”.  This term is not always accurate as sometimes the IPTs (integrated product teams) do not create PTs.  Therefore, they would have know that this flowchart was applicable to them as well.  It was recommended that the term be changed to PT/IPT.

D. Woodson asked the ASAG to review, comment and “play” with the draft flowchart.  He also stated that he is always looking for tools and aids to attach to the activities - if you know of any please get them to him.

ACTION:  (1) All ASAG members review, “play” with and comment on the flowcharts.  Provide any comments to D. Woodson no later than October 22^nd.  (2) J. Long put this change on the October ASAG agenda.

99-55:  Real Estate Policy.  Susan Freericks, ASU-140, presented this change to the ASAG.  It is to make real estate it’s own section of the policy.  Currently real estate policy is buried in the procurement section.  This change is initiated because people can’t seem to find the real estate policy.  Also, ASU-140 is in the process of updating orders which will require some additional real estate policy to be included in the AMS.  J. Trenholm stated he has some comments to forward to ASU-140 in reference to this change.

Pending the comments J. Trenholm has to pass on to ASU-140, the ASAG endorses this change.

ACTION:  (1) J. Long follow-up with ASU-140 to determine status and once comments are addresses to satisfaction prepare ASAG endorsement.

Next Meeting:

October 25, 1999

9:00-12:00

FOB 10A, Conference Room 8AB

Future Meeting Schedule: