Returned changes from C. Keegan – policy changes on mitigating acquisition risk related to process capability (03-44, 03-45, and 03-46) were all returned by C. Keegan with the "disapproval" block chosen

Future Reviews – all policy changes will be looked at more closely for their content and "appearance"

ASP & IPP Approvals - a reference to potential authorities be made and a link to a list

03-51, FAST Toolset System Engineering Guidance Update – ASAG members endorsed the change

03-54, System Process Flowchart/Information Systems Security; 03-55, Security (3.14); 03-56, Critical Functional Disciplines 2.9.11 Security; 03-58, Information Systems Security (ISS) (T3.14.1) – confirmed that the changes had been agreed to and that the changes could be processed for approval

03-67, In-Service Review Checklist Template, Version 2.0, 03-68, Implementation Process Flowchart, 03-69, Deployment Planning Process – ASAG endorsed all three changes pending items as follows: 03-67 – reviewer’s identification of a missing SME; 03-68 – pending any ASAG member comments (if none received, endorsement is assumed); 03-69 – pending any ASAG member comments (if none received, endorsement is assumed); ASAG members review and provide comments to J. Eaton no later than June 30^th

03-70, AMS Lifecycle Front-End Changes – ASAG members review and provide comments to D. Woodson no later than June 30^th

03-71, Replacement Policy for AMS Sections 1.11 and 1.12 - ASAG members review and provide comments to D. Woodson no later than June 30^th

D. Sirk explained that the three policy changes from L. Ibrahim, on mitigating acquisition risk related to process capability (03-44, 03-45, and 03-46) were all returned by C. Keegan with the "disapproval" block chosen. His explanation for the disapproval was "This is too much detail on a limited and mere potential evaluation factor in the AMS policy. It also has the potential to overlap other factors and make the process for selection, longer, more confusing without additional value from what already exists." L Ibrahim was notified and based on a message from her I believe she is going to appeal the disapproval. We are waiting to hear the final outcome of this appeal.

D. Sirk stated with these latest returns from C. Keegan and another minor change that required rework per C. Keegan, all policy changes will be looked at more closely for their content and "appearance". C. Keegan is insisting on keeping the AMS policy streamlined. The minor change that was returned was changed from a 2-paragraph document to a one liner.

D. Woodson stated that based on outside conversations the ASP & IPP approval authorities was once again questioned and therefore brought up before the ASAG for discussion. It is still unclear as to who the actual "head of an operating organization" was for various organizations. It was determined that in the ASP & IPP a reference to potential authorities be made and a link to a list of these individuals/positions be put into the AMS guidance.

ACTION: D. Woodson submit the proposed change and list.

03-51, FAST Toolset System Engineering Guidance Update, Ron Stroup, ASD-100, presented this change. He stated the change replaces the flowcharts currently in FAST with guidance and links to documents outside of FAST. He said this new guidance would be more tailorable and scalable than what currently is in FAST. It is replacing the System Engineering Process Flowchart and the NAS Information Systems Process in Solution Implementation. R. Stroup stated the System Engineering Council approved the new guidance documents and they support ARA performance goals. In addition, R. Stroup mentioned the guidance ties better into current practice than the flowcharts did.

It was asked whether configuration management (CM) was going being incorporated into the System Engineering Manual (SEM) as was identified to ACM at an earlier date. R. Stroup stated the SEM is a living document and version has been out for about a year now. He said version 2 was to be published around September 2003 and the CM part is not expected to be in that version. They are still working the CM piece with ACM and anticipate it will be part of either version 3 around September 2004 or a 2.x version that would come out a few months after version 2. The question was raised about the utility of having a document that was missing large parts available for use. R. Stroup stated version 1 is 85-90% complete and version 2 will be about 95% complete. It is a document they want used now and believe it is stable enough that it is appropriate to be used. In addition, it is a living document, can be updated as necessary and is an additional tool to help programs get their work completed.

ACTION: (1) J. Long forward change for approval.

03-54, System Process Flowchart/Information Systems Security; 03-55, Security (3.14); 03-56, Critical Functional Disciplines 2.9.11 Security; 03-58, Information Systems Security (ISS) (T3.14.1), these changes were on the agenda for this meeting due to the multitude of messages, which related to the changes. The ASAG endorsed the changes pending approval of T. O’Hara, F. Jordan, and J. Eaton. T. O’Hara stated the concerns they had were with new requirements and after meeting with P. Malpass last week they were convinced the documents were as good as possible at this time. He confirmed that the changes had been agreed to and that the changes could be processed for approval. S. Baird said he had a concern with the term "residual requirements" and understood that it was changed to "residual risk". She is fine with the terminology change.

ACTION: (1) J. Long forward changes for approval.

03-67, In-Service Review Checklist Template, Version 2.0, 03-68, Implementation Process Flowchart, 03-69, Deployment Planning Process, D. Woodson addressed these changes in J. Eaton’s absence. He stated change 03-67 basically upgraded the subject matter experts in the checklist. D. Sirk reiterated the fact that many organizations were involved in updating the checklist. D. Woodson stated for changes 03-68 and 03-69 they were to ensure people involved in the process were identified.

ACTION: (1) All ASAG members review and provide comments on changes 03-68 and 03-69 no later than June 30^th. (2) J. Long follow-up with initiator on change 03-67. (3) J. Long forward changes for approval after 6/30 if no comments.

03-70, AMS Lifecycle Front-End Changes, this change replaces change 03-59, Investment Analysis Readiness Reviews Policy Section 2.4 and was prepared by the ASAG working group identified at the last ASAG meeting (J. Eakin, A. Politano, D. Woodson, B. Ingargiola and J. Eaton). Gary Cosman, ARQ-200/NISC, presented the change, which is the result of the work group’s efforts. The new language proposed in the change for AMS policy section 2 expands the mission analysis requirements prior to the mission need decision and makes research management a part of this. D. Woodson indicated this change takes the mission analysis focus from singular capability shortfalls and technological opportunities to a more global look at overall capability needed to optimize service delivery.

The members reminded each other that this change not only affects section 2 of the AMS policy, but any references to section 2 anywhere else in the AMS policy and guidance. The numbering as well as some of the terminology will be affected in various places in the AMS. D. Sirk stated ASU-100 would ensure this global "fix" happens.

A discussion was held on the briefing document provided which will be given to ATS-1 / ARA-1 on June 24^th. The ASAG made recommended modifications to the briefing to make it clearer and more accurate.

ACTION: (1) All ASAG members review and provide comments to D. Woodson no later than June 30^th. (2) D. Sirk assign to ASU-120 the responsibility to ensure the AMS policy and guidance is checked for any affects of this change.

03-71, Replacement Policy for AMS Sections 1.11 and 1.12, D. Woodson presented this change and stated the primary purpose of this change was to expand their applicability to include all organizations and broaden the definition of what we have for program teams/groups. In addition, he said the change is to capture good information from current operations and delete information pertaining to operations that no longer is being done.

The question was raised as to whether everyone (in the Agency) agrees that there won’t be any IPLTs, IMTs, etc. D. Sirk mentioned C. Keegan said there will not be any IPLTs, IMTs, etc., as they existed previously. D. Sirk asked if this change had been reviewed by anyone in ABZ? D. Woodson said it had not and was told by D. Sirk to have them review it.

ACTION: (1) D. Woodson send this change to ABZ for their review and comment. (2) All ASAG members review and provide comments no later than June 30^th.

Future Meeting Schedule:

(Note: All conference rooms are located in FOB10A unless otherwise indicated)

Date	Location
Tuesday, July 29	5AB
Tuesday, August 26	5AB
Tuesday, September 30	5AB
Tuesday, October 28	8AB
Tuesday, November 25	5AB
Tuesday, December 16	5AB

ACTION ITEMS