RE: [plcs-dex] Product Commissioning

["Phil Spiby" <Phil.Spiby@Eurostep.com>]

Nigel,

I will admit that I asked this question from the AP233 perspective ;-)

What I was looking for was a (possible series of) relationship(s) between
the requirements specified and the item itself. I would guess that it may be
possible to accept an item even if it does not meet all of it's requirements
(via exceptions). All of this may be tied to an approval.

I agree that the activity structures will provide the audit trail of who did
what when etc. but I still expect to see some relationships between the
requirements and the item.

As a point of reference the SE view mainly considers requirements
allocations as a driver for decisions. For example a spacecraft may have a
weight requirement of =1000kg. Initial weight allocations (specified as
requirements) may give experiment A 10kg, and experiment B 30kg. After
initial design studies and a period of weight trading the second version may
allocate experiment A 12kg and experiment B 29kg, with a kg of weight being
provided from contingency planning!

A second SE view is the Validation & verification viewpoint, which would be
applied to identify that the predicted weight of the design of experiment A
was 11.9kg which is within the required tolerances. When Experiment A is
then manufactured it should again be validated (using an analysis method) to
ensure that it meets the design criteria. It was this last stage that I
thought may be similar to product commissioning. I guess it also relates to
the concept of "fit for purpose" which may be applied following maintenance
tasks. 

From your message it would appear that these are all viewed as activities
and related concepts. I was hoping for something a little more concrete like
we have with the approval mechanisms for design.

Phil

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Shaw [mailto:nigel.shaw@eurostep.com] 
> Sent: 06 February 2006 13:49
> To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Product Commissioning
> 
> 
> To my knowledge this was not considered for the product but 
> was considered for the support system (see activity A3 in the AAM).
> 
> However, the ability to define tasks, schedules and record 
> history of activity for the commissioning period is no 
> different to later in the product life and the same 
> information constructs will be necessary. It is of course a 
> business decision between the relevant parties as to when 
> ownership and/or responsibility is transferred, who is 
> required to collect what data, etc. Otherwise commissioning 
> is part of product life.
> 
> 	Nigel
> 
> PS: Of course, some suitable reference data to define 
> Activity types, etc. will be required.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com] 
> Sent: 06 February 2006 10:25
> To: nigel.shaw@eurostep.com; plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Product Commissioning
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies for lack of clarity. The intention was to cover the 
> stage in which the product is manufactured, but needs to be 
> tested (and possibly
> modified) in order to make surer that it actually works (sea 
> trials, test flights, etc).
> 
> 
> 
> Sean Barker
> 0117 302 8184
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel Shaw [mailto:nigel.shaw@eurostep.com]
> 
> Sent: 06 February 2006 10:14
> To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [plcs-dex] Product Commissioning
> 
>                *** WARNING ***
> 
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either 
> from an external partner or the Global Internet.
> 
>      Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
> 
> 
> Taking a lead from the AP239 Activity model, and assuming 
> that you mean the process by which someone asks someone else 
> to come up with a product that meets a specified set of 
> requirements, the answer is that it was considered to be out 
> of scope. (Just as manufacturing products was out of scope.) 
> If you mean something different, please expand.
> 
> However, it is likely that the basic work order process could 
> be applied, for which there is support in information terms.
> 
> 	Nigel
> 
> --
> Nigel Shaw
> Managing Director, Eurostep Limited
> Cwttir Lane, St. Asaph, LL17 0LQ, UK
> Tel + 44 1745 582008 Mobile +44 7785 386913 Tel USA +1 (586) 
> 486-3353 nigel.shaw@eurostep.com www.eurostep.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barker, Sean (UK) [mailto:sean.barker@baesystems.com]
> Sent: 06 February 2006 09:31
> To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [plcs-dex] Product Commissioning
> 
> 
> 
> The AP233 team raised the question whether PLCS had 
> considered product commissioning. Has anyone looked at this 
> or have any suggestions for it?
> 
> Sean Barker
> 0117 302 8184
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the 
> intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not 
> the intended recipient please delete it from your system and 
> notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any 
> purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********************************************************************
> This email and any attachments are confidential to the 
> intended recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not 
> the intended recipient please delete it from your system and 
> notify the sender. You should not copy it or use it for any 
> purpose nor disclose or distribute its contents to any other person.
> ********************************************************************
> 
>