Subject: Beginning of Project Plan for TP
Hi Ann, I see that last night's mail didn't have the attachment, so I'm forwarding again. I haven't worked on it any more yet today - probably will do more tonight, but this should be enough to give to your person to see if it can be easily transfered into a spreadsheet. It should, since this doesn't yet have dependencies, or any complex entries. I still have to verify this against the last mail that went out from Marty/Chris, but they will be discussing this at Tokyo. I entered some of the Projects and Activities. I say 'some' because as soon as you start to enter these it becomes clear that there needs to be a lot more detail. However, even with these few items, there are a couple of things that have come up that could be addressed. 1) Everyone is in need of an up-to-date glossary. Marty Sachs spent several weeks looking for the keeper of the official glossary. I'm not sure where he found the version he got last week, but that's what we're working off of in TP now. Chris Ferris would like to pull together a BOF to try to nail down terminology, since namespace collisions are becoming more frequent now that the teams are putting their work together. So the question is who should own the glossary. TP doesn't seem like the most reasonable group, but it affects them quite a bit and a lot of the terminology discussions have been taking place around TP definitions. Who should own the glossary? 2) This schedule works back from Vancouver. The final deliverables are fairly well-known, but the driving factor is the PoC requirement. QR eats into the time people have to develop before giving to PoC. Can the process be streamlined? Officially I think things still need to go to QR before PoC, but it doesn't seem realistic with the schedule everyone is trying to meet. So people are submitting to QR unofficially to get a signoff to give to PoC. Should this be formalized so that it doesn't have to be done 'under the covers'? Perhaps there should be 2 types of QR review - one for PoC and another for release to the public? I dont' think there's anything formalized about that yet. 3) TRP has a dependency on TP, but I can't put that in without knowing what the TRP dependency is. Even then, I'm not sure how you want us to link up the inter-team dependencies. We should talk about that. 4) As I mentioned, in regards to use of Microsoft Project, it's about 60%/40% against, since some people don't have the software and others don't have the experience. Then others don't have the time, even if they have both of the above. So try to get this into a spreadsheet and let me know how it goes. It should be very straight-forward since there is no linking or anything in this yet - it's just a list. I'll be putting more info into it tomorrow, and as we go. and ... 5) It's hard to assign resources to the various tasks, because in this environment the entire team works on the tasks, or at the least, a sub-team. So assigning resources is a bit different, since it is a rotating team as well and you can't count on one person staying with it the entire time. We'll have to discuss this - how to define the resources. -Anne
ebXML_Project_Team_TP_20001028.mpp
Powered by
eList eXpress LLC