From rinehuls@access.digex.net Sat May 4 00:17:43 1996 Received: from access2.digex.net (qlrhmEbBUV1EY@access2.digex.net [205.197.245.193]) by dkuug.dk (8.6.12/8.6.12) with ESMTP id AAA28985 for ; Sat, 4 May 1996 00:17:39 +0200 Received: from localhost (rinehuls@localhost) by access2.digex.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id SAA07410 ; for ; Fri, 3 May 1996 18:17:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:17:20 -0400 (EDT) From: "william c. rinehuls" X-Sender: rinehuls@access2.digex.net To: sc22docs@dkuug.dk Subject: SC22 N2136 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces Secretariat: U.S.A. (ANSI) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 N2136 May 1996 TITLE: Criteria for Success of JTC 1 Re-engineering SOURCE: Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 WORK ITEM: N/A STATUS: N/A CROSS REFERENCE: N/A DOCUMENT TYPE: N/A ACTION: To SC22 Member Bodies and Working Group Con- veners for action or information as applicable. SC22 Member Bodies and Working Group Conveners with comments specifically related to the work of SC22 are encouraged to submit these comments to Mr. Robert Follett, SC22 Chairman, NOT LATER THAN APRIL 30, 1996 for forwarding. SC22 Member Bodies comments not specifically related to the work of SC22 should be submitted through their respective National Body. Address reply to: ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat William C. Rinehuls 8457 Rushing Creek Court Springfield, VA 22153 USA Tel: +1 (703) 912-9680 Fax: +1 (703) 912-2973 email: rinehuls@access.digex.net ____________________________________________________________________________ Date: Thu, 02 May 96 13:32:00 edt From: LISA RAJCHEL Subject: Denmark's Homework Assignment, JTC 1 N 4095 Attached please find document JTC 1 N 4095, Danish Contribution on JTC 1 Reengineering addressing the the Criteria for Success of JTC 1 Reengineering. National Body and SC contributions are requested on this document by 7 June 1996. PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL OR DISK SO THAT THEY MAY BE DISTRIBUTED VIA EMAIL. This document is also being sent via facsimile in order to ensure that it reaches everyone.[[ DANISHCO.TXT : 3370 in DANISHCO.TXT ]] __________________________________________________________________ ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4095 1996-05-02 Title:Danish contribution on the topic: Criteria for success of JTC 1 re- engineering Source: National Body of Denmark Action: This document is circulated to JTC 1 National Bodies and Subcommittees for review and comment by 7 June 1996. 0. Introduction This contribution should be considered as the first step in an iterative process of getting to a set of measurable criteria for evaluation of the JTC 1 re-engineering. It is obvious that the contributions on the other topics will create new criteria and change some of the given. We have tried to give the criteria with goals and objectives for the re-engineering in mind, ie. criteria for parameters that will lead JTC 1 to be THE focal point of global IT-standardization. 1. Number of participants Several criteria can be used as a measurement of success. 1. An increasing number of P-members 2. An increasing number of people volunteering as editors and other officers 3. An increasing number of participants at standardization meetings. An increase of P-members aids the information desimination, officers are essential to progress the work and by participants we mean participation by the stakeholders of the standards. Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. 2. Number of projects An increasing number of projects within JTC1 can be taken as a measure of success if the projects meet the needs of the market. (We are doing the right thing) Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. 3. Project management A project needs to be carefully defined and subdivided into specific subwork items/parts where it may be considered to be an advantage. The reason for a subdivision might be to get parts of the standard finished faster, to better meet market needs and/or to make future developments/evolution easier to implement. A carefully defined project(WI) might attract new participants. The time from a NP is initiated and until the standard is published is to be controlled and shortened as much as possible. Every project must have specific milestones that have to be met in order to satisfy the overall time plan for the project. Examples of milestones could be: A firm agreement on Scope and table of contents, CD draft ready, DIS ready, approved DIS sent to ITTF for publication. Consequences for not fulfilling the milestones should be stated. SC chairmen with a project failing to meet the milestones need to explain the delays to JTC1 and present updated time schedules for approval. JTC1 needs to consider the consequences of the delays and, in cases where the new time schedule is not approved, specifically make decisions on how to proceed. A goal of say 12 months for completion of a standard may be set by JTC1 as a criteria for success, but the acceptable time frame depends on several factors, e.g. on the complexity of the project. It may, therefore, be more reasonable to focus on setting up a realistic time schedule for the project and to ensure that the work progress according to this schedule. This method may ensure that JTC1 will be considered as a reliable organization with time schedules that can be counted upon. 4. Error corrections It is essential to note that there is no such thing as a perfect standard. The time spent in producing a standard is a compromise between seeking the 100% perfect standard, the available time and manpower and the market needs. It is a healthy sign when errors are reported because it proves that the standard is used. If the number of reported errors increases too much it may though indicate that the standard in question was not good enough when published. 5. Meetings A higher activity within JTC1 may result in a higher number of meetings per year and/or in an increased number of participants in the meetings. Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. All documents to be dealt with at an SC or JTC1 meeting are to be distributed well in advance of the meeting to allow opinions to be formed by the NSOs. This highlights the importance of getting the agreed work done between meetings. In addition to distributed documents only documents produced at the meeting and, if the participants agree on it, late contributions can be discussed. Projection systems may be used when agreeing to e.g. modified time schedules for projects for which previous distribution was not possible. The success of a meeting may be judged on the completeness of the distributed agenda, the availability of the relevant documents well in advance of the meeting, the disposition of the available time on the agenda items and of the results of the meeting as such. 6. Marketing material It is well known that most standards are difficult to understand if you have not participated in the writing process. In order to facilitate the use and understanding of the standard a technical report or annex to the standard should explain the background for the standard and give a short introduction to the standard, e.g. as a kind of tutorial. This kind of document would promote the use and understanding of standards and result in an increased sale of standards. 7. Acceptance of PAS's An easy criteria is the count of accepted PAS's within one or two years. To be the focal point JTC 1 has to attract fora, etc. to bring there PAS's forward according to the new procedures. If they do not, either the rules or the position of JTC 1 are wrong, and we have not shown our ability to co-operate with these important partners. 8. Withdrawal of obsolete standards An increasing number of withdrawn standards can be taken as a measure of success. The withdrawn standards can either have been replaced by revisions or just vanished as the covered topics are not relevant anymore. In short, it could be a measure of having an updated set of standards available. ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4095 1996-05-02 Title: Danish contribution on the topic: Criteria for success of JTC 1 re- engineering Source: National Body of Denmark Action: This document is circulated to JTC 1 National Bodies and Subcommittees for review and comment by 7 June 1996. 0. Introduction This contribution should be considered as the first step in an iterative process of getting to a set of measurable criteria for evaluation of the JTC 1 re-engineering. It is obvious that the contributions on the other topics will create new criteria and change some of the given. We have tried to give the criteria with goals and objectives for the re-engineering in mind, ie. criteria for parameters that will lead JTC 1 to be THE focal point of global IT-standardization. 1. Number of participants Several criteria can be used as a measurement of success. 1. An increasing number of P-members 2. An increasing number of people volunteering as editors and other officers 3. An increasing number of participants at standardization meetings. An increase of P-members aids the information desimination, officers are essential to progress the work and by participants we mean participation by the stakeholders of the standards. Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. 2. Number of projects An increasing number of projects within JTC1 can be taken as a measure of success if the projects meet the needs of the market. (We are doing the right thing) Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. 3. Project management A project needs to be carefully defined and subdivided into specific subwork items/parts where it may be considered to be an advantage. The reason for a subdivision might be to get parts of the standard finished faster, to better meet market needs and/or to make future developments/evolution easier to implement. A carefully defined project(WI) might attract new participants. The time from a NP is initiated and until the standard is published is to be controlled and shortened as much as possible. Every project must have specific milestones that have to be met in order to satisfy the overall time plan for the project. Examples of milestones could be: A firm agreement on Scope and table of contents, CD draft ready, DIS ready, approved DIS sent to ITTF for publication. Consequences for not fulfilling the milestones should be stated. SC chairmen with a project failing to meet the milestones need to explain the delays to JTC1 and present updated time schedules for approval. JTC1 needs to consider the consequences of the delays and, in cases where the new time schedule is not approved, specifically make decisions on how to proceed. A goal of say 12 months for completion of a standard may be set by JTC1 as a criteria for success, but the acceptable time frame depends on several factors, e.g. on the complexity of the project. It may, therefore, be more reasonable to focus on setting up a realistic time schedule for the project and to ensure that the work progress according to this schedule. This method may ensure that JTC1 will be considered as a reliable organization with time schedules that can be counted upon. 4. Error corrections It is essential to note that there is no such thing as a perfect standard. The time spent in producing a standard is a compromise between seeking the 100% perfect standard, the available time and manpower and the market needs. It is a healthy sign when errors are reported because it proves that the standard is used. If the number of reported errors increases too much it may though indicate that the standard in question was not good enough when published. 5. Meetings A higher activity within JTC1 may result in a higher number of meetings per year and/or in an increased number of participants in the meetings. Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1. All documents to be dealt with at an SC or JTC1 meeting are to be distributed well in advance of the meeting to allow opinions to be formed by the NSOs. This highlights the importance of getting the agreed work done between meetings. In addition to distributed documents only documents produced at the meeting and, if the participants agree on it, late contributions can be discussed. Projection systems may be used when agreeing to e.g. modified time schedules for projects for which previous distribution was not possible. The success of a meeting may be judged on the completeness of the distributed agenda, the availability of the relevant documents well in advance of the meeting, the disposition of the available time on the agenda items and of the results of the meeting as such. 6. Marketing material It is well known that most standards are difficult to understand if you have not participated in the writing process. In order to facilitate the use and understanding of the standard a technical report or annex to the standard should explain the background for the standard and give a short introduction to the standard, e.g. as a kind of tutorial. This kind of document would promote the use and understanding of standards and result in an increased sale of standards. 7. Acceptance of PAS's An easy criteria is the count of accepted PAS's within one or two years. To be the focal point JTC 1 has to attract fora, etc. to bring there PAS's forward according to the new procedures. If they do not, either the rules or the position of JTC 1 are wrong, and we have not shown our ability to co-operate with these important partners. 8. Withdrawal of obsolete standards An increasing number of withdrawn standards can be taken as a measure of success. The withdrawn standards can either have been replaced by revisions or just vanished as the covered topics are not relevant anymore. In short, it could be a measure of having an updated set of standards available.