Нормативно-справочная база CALS. Attendees/Last Minutes Progress with Project Set Up. Sponsorship, страница 5

·  We need to be aware of, and to react to potential alternative to PLCS, which could undermine support for the project.  Well marketed alternatives could be still undermine PLCS even if they did not provide the same capabilities.  This may include dominant software packages (e.g. SAP are claiming they have a complete ILS solution – with links to Solver/Omega PS.) and/or other standardisation initiatives (PDML??).  

·  Need to add element to TDP for vendor marketing campaign in August/Sept (including a vendor launch meeting?)

9.2  Viability and Risks

The Chair requested sponsors views on the current level of risk:

·  BMT – were aware of the level of risks and content with the way they are being addressed

·  DoD - This is a high risk project. How often have ballots been 100% supported?  Sponsors should be aware that a 5 year commitment may be needed.  ISO balloting presents a major time scale risk.

·  FMV – are concerned at Legal complications in getting government commitment.

·  MES - number of sponsor is key.  Ramping up the resources will be difficult - address this in the year 1 Plan.  Also concerned at being overtaken by Vendor initiatives. (Good marketing is crucial here)

·  EuroSTEP - need to climb the hurdle of winning commitment from live real projects to use PLCS products (Build good business cases as part of marketing.  Sponsors must lead by example – use it or loose it!.)

·  UK MoD see PLCS as a high risk, but important venture.   Winning more sponsors is the best risk reduction measure.  Need to develop risk model using TDP.

·  LSC - Delay is always possible with standards projects - you cannot mandate consensus! More work is needed to develop a progressive approach so that deliverables can be matched to the resources available. 

·  Norway - there will be a problem of freeing up resources.  Sponsors must be able to name names soon.  Are we being realistic about the early milestones?  E.g. Don't forget the summer holidays!

·  DNV – Is concerned that sense of ownership by sponsors is still too weak, especially from the Owner/Operators such as the Ministries of Defence and the Airlines who will see the major benefits.

·  Lockheed - timeframe looks optimistic at present, with resources too small for the work.  There is however a real prospect for growing commitment over time. 

·  Boeing -  resources look small.  They have spent $1.5M on Engineering Analysis Core ARM without completing the work past PWI stage. (SEDRES has spent 40 man years to date.)  

·  RR - track record suggests schedule is optimistic.  Need to build up Vendor involvement.   There is no point in proceeding without them.   

·  Saab concerned at slow rate of build up.  Will we run out of runway?? Saab are used to short take offs! 

Overall - we have framework in place for a major and necessary business improvement but this is a high risk/high return project.  The 3 best measures for reducing risk are:

Obtain LoIs and firm up the commitment of resources from existing sponsors

Recruit more sponsors, especially from US and rest of Europe.

Develop plan for a modular approach

9.3  Training/Awareness

FMV described the courses they have available for Information Management and STEP training.  These should be suitable for PLCS participants.  It was noted that  SC4 also offer training, during SC$ meetings.  EPM advised that Lockheed Martin are offering a 4 day training course in Fort Worth (Jim Crawford has info).  NCO maintain a register of training opportunities, to which these can added if communicated.

Nigel Shaw noted that the PLCS team needs time together - not lots of separate sessions.   Boye Tranum saw a big need to train members outside the core group – perhaps a half day executive sessions as part of any Launch Event.   There is also a need for wider awareness activity (e.g. articles in “house magazines”).