Subject: SC22 N2137

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 May 1996 11:44:55 -0400 (EDT)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A. (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

N2137

May 1996

TITLE:             JTC 1 Project Justification and Market Relevance

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 Conveners 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 Body 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:  [email-masked]

____________________________________________________________________________

From: LISA RAJCHEL <[email-masked]>

Subject: UK Homework Assignment

Attached please find document JTC 1 N 4096, UK Contribution on JTC 1 
Reengineering addressing Project Justification and Market Relevance.
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.

[[ J1N4096.TXT : 2579 in J1N4096.TXT ]]

_____________________________________________________________________

ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4096

JTC 1 PROJECT JUSTIFICATION AND MARKET RELEVANCE

This document has been prepared as part of the UK Contribution to the JTC 1 
Ad Hoc on Re-engineering and in response to Resolution 8 of the 9th JTC 1 
Plenary. .

1.   INTRODUCTION

     This paper describes a possible justification and prioritization 
procedure for International standards projects.  It is based on part of the 
Better Business Planning process in operation in the IST assembly of DISC, 
the UK IT Standards body which is a part of BSI.

     The Project Justification procedure is based on Market Relevance 
concepts.  The remainder of this Introduction sets out an environment within 
which the proposed scheme can operate.

1.1  Project Justification depends on the current environment.  This can 
change (sometimes rapidly) with time.

1.2  Project Justification will depend on Time Scales, therefore programmes 
of work need to cover a period of up to 3 years and be updated regularly, 
the first year being in detail.

1.3  Projects need to be described in a common format to enable proper 
comparisons and realistic prioritization to be made.

1.4  The process of prioritization can be enhanced by a proper Audit, 
Feedback, and Correction programme.

1.5  It is difficult to separate the prioritization process from the need 
for a consistent overall Business Plan in a Standard format.

2.   PRIMARY CRITERIA FOR USE IN ASSESSMENTS OF WORK PRIORITY

     The following table sets out criteria for the assessment and 
prioritization of projects.  The result should place the Project of Work 
Item in one of the 5 listed categories.  All the questions should be 
answered by  Yes , or  No .  If the answer is  Yes  the right hand box 
should be ticked.  If the answer is  No , the right hand box should be left 
blank.

     Usually, the project takes the category of the highest tick, but there 
are times where some judgement may be needed.

     The five categories are :-

     1.   MANDATORY

          Most of this work must be done within a useful time period.

     2.   HIGHLY DESIRABLE

     Most of this work is clearly beneficial and should be done.  Some 
concessions could be made on timing and richness of content.     

     3.   DESIRABLE

          Should be included if at all possible, content may be reduced and 
schedule extended.

     4.   USEFUL

          Would merit some work if resources are available.

     5.   STOP/REJECT

          Difficult to continue to justify funding/resourcing.

Category  Criteria  Tick
A - Mandatory  A1-Important to National and International Security    
     A2-Important to Global and Public safety     
     A3-Required by National or International Laws     
     A4-Top ranking user or consumer requirement  
     A5-Essential to business success   
     A6-Commitment to other International bodies  
     A7-Meeting Specific ISO/IEC requirements     
B - Highly     B1-Significant user or consumer requirement  
 Desirable     B2-Supplements, supports or maintains a category A activity 
     B3-Valuable to, and supported by business groups AND having strategic 
importance     
     B4-Additional work on commitment to other International bodies   
     B5-Meeting other ISO/IEC requirements   
     B6-Programme leading to clear future work    
     B7-Second level work required by National or International Laws  
     B8-Marketing of standards or related activities (Marketing Relevance) 
C - Desirable  C1_Mid-range user or consumer requirement    
     C2-Completion/maintenance and development work on existing programmes 
     C3-Work supported by business and industry, but not of strategic 
importance     
     C4-Start of new work clearly leading to a category A or B programme   
     C5-Any other work required by National or International Laws     
D - Useful     Work areas not meeting the criteria for categories A, B or C, 
but with some specific merit in investigating and seeding new work, or in 
completing and maintaining still relevant past work    
E - Stop/reject     Work areas that have been replaced, superseded, 
overtaken or otherwise lost relevance or are no longer valid.    

Programmes should be categorised on the above basis, and then if necessary, 
the criteria can be used to prioritise competing programmes within 
categories and across committees and sectors.

This qualitative approach presents a balanced view of priority which is not 
exclusively qualitative.

The criteria includes quantitative factors such a business value and 
finance. But avoids the pitfalls of pointless numeric comparisons.

3.   INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

     In order to make proper sense of the prioritization there will be a 
need for a common data based of all the programmes  Supporting Information  
which can be made available to all working groups.

     There is a need to balance the Justification for all work items (New 
Work, On-going Work and Maintenance Work) against the resources required. 
 Hence there is a need to know what resources are required for each item, 
and when, and what the availability of  these resources are.

     New Work Items must be supported by information allowing judgement to 
be made on prioritization and resources by the criteria given in section 2 
above.

4.   BUSINESS SCENARIO

     JTC 1 will have to develop some consistent basic Business Information 
in order to make business decisions.

     There will also be a need to regularly review the priorities and 
resource allocations for all parts of the work.

     There is a need to decide who in JTC 1 will be responsible for managing 
this process.

     If a Prioritization procedure is agreed and adopted, then it is 
important that a change procedure should be put in place.

5.   THE TOTAL PLANNING PROCESS

     This document has been developed from the better Business Planning 
Process in use in IST in DISC, the UK IT standards body, which is a part of 
BSI.

     While the area covered by this document has been restricted to the 
Project Justifications and Market Relevance of Standards Work, experience in 
the UK has shown that this cannot stand outside a total Business Planning 
Process.  Prioritization isolated from the rest of the planning process has 
a limited value.  Note should be taken of the UK process, and an equivalent 
process should be developed for JTC 1 which can incorporate, and set into 
context the above Project Justification ideas.

The following binary file has been uuencoded to ensure successful
transmission.  Use UUDECODE to extract.