[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [emergency-if] EDXL-AT & Situational Awareness
Agreed, Sukumar, Making sure that our work is built on a solid foundation of practicality is one of my main aims, and so far, IMHO we've done that to the best of our ability. Cheers, Rex At 5:19 PM -0400 3/19/07, Sukumar Dwarkanath wrote: >Rex, > >Not a problem - thanks for the clarification. My intention was not to >cause grief - you have been instrumental, with a few others, in a lot of >work that has been accomplished by the committee and I just wanted to >make sure we were all on the same page and the SMEs do not read this >email in the wrong way, as I did. > >I agree in that we need to learn lessons and recognize that some of the >work may be more time consuming than what we, or others, expect. I guess >we should start with the assumption that a task will take a good amount >of work, whatever shape the requirements are in. > >Thanks > >Sukumar > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com] >Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:38 PM >To: Sukumar Dwarkanath; Timothy Grapes; Rex Brooks; >tgrapes@evotechinc.com; emergency-msg@lists.oasis-open.org; >emergency-if@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [emergency-if] EDXL-AT & Situational Awareness > >My apologies Sukumar, > >I misspoke on that. My thinking was colored by the fact that, I >believe the work had been described as having been developed over a >fairly long period of time and was in a more advanced state of >development that, if I recall correctly, was described as not needing >as thorough-going, from-scratch an approach or effort on our part. >However, that is not what I would characterize as a candidate >specification, so I gladly stand corrected. > >I also intended no disparagement of SMEs, per se, as long as they >don't assume, or are not expected or required to assume that their >expertise extends to areas where it is, in fact, not appropriate. I >agree we absolutely MUST work with SMEs, and my comments may have >gotten out of bounds. As I said, I stand corrected. > >I have been reviewing some decidedly worrisome efforts by extremely >well-intentioned and extremely well-qualified groups in areas where >none of us can afford to allow processes and approaches that are not >well founded to be carried forward into specifications, especially in >the areas of health and emergency management, where poor reality >testing, poor conceptual methodology and poor follow-through can, in >fact, harm us all. That definitely is coloring my thinking lately, >and the fact that these efforts are two and three and five years >along a path that is proving problematic is downright depressing. > >My intent was to remind us that we need to make sure we learn our >lessons well, and being persuaded that a completely necessary piece >of work may in fact be submitted to us with an expectation that we >can complete our task of building a workable specification with it in >less time than we are usually able to do this because it has been >heavily worked on by experts is not something I think is advisable. > >The problem is in the "expectation of less time due to expert input." > >My secondary point is that we should also be keen to learn from our >experience and devise ways in which we can reasonably expect to >improve our work product and perhaps lessen the time needed to >complete our tasks. > >Sorry, >Rex > >At 2:05 PM -0400 3/19/07, Sukumar Dwarkanath wrote: >> >> EDXL-HAVE, in my opinion, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that >>accepting >>candidate specifications by groups of SMEs is almost always >>a mistake. SMEs rarely >>fully understand how broad, yet rigorous, the >>specification-writing process needs to be. >> >>>> We have now had to PAINFULLY deal with the consequences of being >>persuaded that >>the SMEs know their area best and that means they are >>the best group to write a >>specification for that area, instead of > >carefully working through a rigorous requirements-writing process. >> >> >>Rex: >> >>I am not sure how you characterize a candidate specification but >>EDXL-HAVE was submitted in the format that the EM TC requested - as a >>requirements specification - and not as a candidate specification. >> >>As I see it, the practitioners/SMEs do know their area best - I do not >>believe that will change - we should recognize this and work with the >>practitioners to leverage their domain expertise. >> >> >> >>Sukumar > > >-- >Rex Brooks >President, CEO >Starbourne Communications Design >GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison >Berkeley, CA 94702 >Tel: 510-849-2309 -- Rex Brooks President, CEO Starbourne Communications Design GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison Berkeley, CA 94702 Tel: 510-849-2309
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]