[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue 41 - Reworking of Technology Management Framework - closed
Chris raised a comment with me about the fact that the Technology Management Framework was much lighter in the Guidance Note section than for the other Frameworks. I originally put a lot of material in Part II (probably more than is consistent with Colin’s “nice and tight” mandate for that section). Chris suggested that I recut the material and proposed a starting point for that. Basically, this is about making the Technology Management material consistent in structural terms with the other frameworks: ie a very bare bones approach in Part II (just introducing the components, giving the diagram and setting out conformance criteria), with all the other material moved to the Guidance Note at Part III, structured in the same way as the other Guidance Notes (Context/Overview/Detailed Components). I’ve taken Chris’ proposal practically wholesale with a few minor changes and incorporated this in the revised text. It changes none of the actual substance of the sections, just their placement and subsequent emphasis. Peter From: Chris Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com] Peter Thanks for sending this, it’s been really helpful – and much easier than wading through the mass of emails! I have a few minor comments on some of the suggestions which have been made, which I’ll make through the formal system later today. But there was also one issue I wanted to run by you first. I was struck that the Technology Management Framework (which I like by the way!), was much lighter in the Guidance Note section than the other Frameworks. I think in part this is because you put a lot of material in Part II (more than I think is consistent with Colin’s “nice and tight” mandate for that section). So what I am suggesting is that we recut the material, in the way I have done in the attached document. This accepts all the revisions that were made previously, so you can see just the impact of the restructuring I am suggesting. Basically, this is about making the Technology Management material consistent in structural terms with the other frameworks: ie a very bare bones approach in Part II (just introducing the components, giving the diagram and setting out conformance criteria), with all the other material moved to the Guidance Note at Part III, structured in the same way as the other Guidance Notes (Context/Overview/Detailed Components). If you’re happy with this, I’ll post a comment to this effect, and leave you to finalise the detail of the restructuring based on the first cut I’ve done in the attached. Also, I attach a ppt file with various diagrams, including updates to the two which I’ve spotted people have asked to be changed (issues 8 and 7). Can I leave you to insert these in to the document please? You’ll see that I’ve also amended the first two slide here (which give the overviews of the TGF) to align them with the 3 components of your Tech Management Framework. Regards, Chris Parker Managing Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060 From: Peter F Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Chris, Attached are: - The work-in-progress document including all edits requested to date; tracked changes will show all changes compared with Working Draft 01 (except corrected typos and formatting changes, for clarity). All sidebar comments indicate either provenance of change (initials in bracket) or the Issue Number as logged in the Issues List; This version will be marked ‘complete’ and current date added to cover page when we (editors + John) are happy to release a new version to the list (again, in PDF), either for further round of comment and/or approval at March meeting; - The Issues List, ordered by general comments and then line numbers where issues are raised. Some issue n° differences compared with TC list discussions (result of merging two issues lists) but hopefully unambiguous; - The PDF of the original Working Draft 01 – if you submit further comments, still use the (stable) line numbers here John, Copy for info, so that you see how this is all looking. For Thursday’s call, I’ll do a cut down version of the list to highlight the half dozen or so items that I think we need to work on – happy for you to propose items from this list too… Peter From: Chris Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com] Great, thanks. From: Peter F Brown <peter@peterfbrown.com> Chris, sorry only just seen this. From: Chris Parker |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]