Hi Israel, I noticed that there are two comments on Use Case#8. Would you please resolve the comments and propose a new text. Meanwhile, I am going to merge the proposed Use Case 5, 6, and 7 into our agreed working draft. Thanks. Thinh From: ext Johannes Lehtinen [mailto:johannes.lehtinen@rossum.fi]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 9:11 AM
To: FFM TC List
Subject: Re: [ffm] Groups - Comments by IB (ClickSoftware) to the business use cases and features document (FFMIIBusinessUseCasesFeatures20110627-D - IB comments, 6-Jul-11.docx) uploaded Thank you, Jiri!
Regarding this last paragraph in Use Case 8 Jiri already commented on:
"The Assignee may also need to interact with the customer regarding non-technical issues, such as viewing and explaining the latest cable invoice or selling additional services. While such issues are outside the FFMII scope, there are still some implications for FFMII: First, the Assignee needs to be able to add additional Steps or Activities to the existing Work Request, in order to document the additional interaction with the customer and any additional service performed. Second, the catalog of Steps and Activities that may be added in such a way should include indication as to whether these require further payments, signatures, approvals etc. so that FFM can properly guide the Assignee in performing these tasks."
I would propose some further refinements to the wording of this paragraph, focusing on the use case and explaining implications in more detail in the features section.
"The Assignee may also need to interact with the customer regarding non-technical issues, such as viewing and explaining the latest cable invoice or selling additional services. While such issues are outside the FFMII scope, the Assignee reports the additional interaction with the customer and any additional service performed to the ERMS via FFMII. Furthermore, based on this input, the ERMS adds new Activities and Steps to the Work Request, as necessary, including indication as to whether further payments, signatures, approvals etc. are required so that FFMS can properly guide the Assignee."
Also, couple of minor comments regarding the use of FFM / FFM Implementation / FFMS / ERMS terms.
In Use Case 8: Cable Service
Paragraph 1, sentence: "FFM may then need to provision the new STB".
The intention is probably to refer to ERMS? "ERMS may then need to provision the new STB".
Paragraph 1, last sentence: "The FFM Implementation expects a response to this request that it has initiated and created."
For symmetry, I would prefer FFMS over FFM Implementation: "FFMS expects a response to this request that it has initiated and created."
No further comments from me regarding the proposed Business Use Cases.
BR, Johannes
2011/7/20 Hlusi, Jiri (NSN - FI/Tampere) <jiri.hlusi@nsn.com> Hello all,
The proposed additions regarding Business Use cases are fine with me,
except for one modification still suggested in UC8. The objective is
to emphasize more the active role of ERMS/Manager in accepting structural
changes to Work Request
Location: Use Case 8, paragraph 3, sentence 2:
Original wording:
>> "First, the Assignee needs to be able to add additional Steps or
>> Activities to the existing Work Request ......
Proposed wording:
>> "First, the Assignee needs to be able to request additional of Steps or
>> Activities to the existing Work Request ......
In other words, Implementation should not be in a position of autonomously
affecting structure of existing Work Request, but rather interact with the
Manager for that purpose.
I will submit comments regarding the Features Requirements as separate document....
Best Regards,
Jiri
-----Original Message-----
From: Nguyenphu, Thinh (NSN - US/Irving)
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 6:14 PM
To: israel.beniaminy@clicksoftware.com; ffm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ffm] Groups - Comments by IB (ClickSoftware) to the business use cases and features document (FFMIIBusinessUseCasesFeatures20110627-D - IB comments, 6-Jul-11.docx) uploaded
Hi,
This document includes few comments or changes to the original features requirements and some new feature requirements based on the new business use cases from ClickSoftware.
I requesting everyone to review the proposed changes only and provide your comments on the list.
Email discussion and reviewing end on July 21.
Regards,
Thinh
-----Original Message-----
From: ext israel.beniaminy@clicksoftware.com [mailto:israel.beniaminy@clicksoftware.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:06 AM
To: ffm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ffm] Groups - Comments by IB (ClickSoftware) to the business use cases and features document (FFMIIBusinessUseCasesFeatures20110627-D - IB comments, 6-Jul-11.docx) uploaded
The document named Comments by IB (ClickSoftware) to the business use cases
and features document (FFMIIBusinessUseCasesFeatures20110627-D - IB
comments, 6-Jul-11.docx) has been submitted by Israel Beniaminy to the
OASIS Field Force Management (FFM) TC document repository.
Document Description:
Includes proposals for additional features based on the new use cases as
well as a fe other comments.
View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=42831
Download Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/42831/FFMIIBusinessUseCasesFeatures20110627-D%20-%20IB%20comments%2C%206-Jul-11.docx
PLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email application
may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
-OASIS Open Administration
--
Johannes Lehtinen
gsm +358 40 734 7049
Rossum Oy
|