Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Below are the workflow requirements for Project Scope Statement (PSS) approvals.

Note these are the process steps to gain approval of a PSS.  These requirements do not address the criteria each work group uses to approve or disapprove a PSS.

Questions or Issues

Do we want to perform validation as well as workflow?

Do we want to document the criteria for each approval step?

From Dave Hamill:

To reflect that "Administrative review can occur in parallel with Work Group Approval, the arrow from Start should be '4 pronged', with the last three arrows going to a yes/no decision if an approval is needed by :

1. Sponsor

2. CoSponsor


4. Management Group


Required Steps in Sequence

  1. First step



    1. I'm confused by the 2 diagrams, since they're overlapping (and different in style).  Should be combined into one diagram.
    2. Why do we have to list each product family group?  One product mgmt review step should be necessary (and I expect it rare for a PSS to involve more than 1 at a time).  Let's not have to revise the diagram as we add new groups.
    3. I also don't think the process needs to be so sequential.  Sure, there's a create step and need for a sponsor to sign up first.  But after that, why can't each appropriate review group (Co-Sponsors, US Realm) can review in parallel online.  They can watch if they want to see if another group made changes.  We really want to reduce the total length of time by having comments and changes shared over a single copy that's accessible to all, rather than the current share with 1, make updates, share with another sequential process that is so time consuming.
    4. I don't know what triggers ARB review, or where Admin review appears in the first diagram.  Ideally, ARB review would also occur in parallel, along with SD.  TSC approval needs to be separate.  
    5. I'm confused by the "required Steps in Sequence" section, which is blank.  Doesn't seem to be necessary if diagrams are complete.  Yes, we would like to see criteria for each step – this could be in the form a a single checklist that lists criteria for each type of reviewer.
    6. I don't understand what is meant by the "Do we want to perform validation?" question.  Validation of what?  The form should be self-validating with completeness checks. 

  1. Regarding #4: ARB review is triggered when, in section 6.a., the author of the PSS answers 'yes' to "Was the content externally developed?"

    1. OK, that can be handled on the form – to automatically include ARB review if the box is checked.  I think that ARB review could also happen in parallel, once a sponsor has approved (so we know it's real), since they have a distinctly different point of view.

  2. From TSC conversation today, we'd like to add a sub-section, probably in section 6 that covers sustainability:

    Title: Sustainability needs/plan

    Instructions: Identify any actions being taken to engage and provide support for integrating new participants resulting from this work as well as how to sustain the community both through initial development and long-term maintenance.  This section is most relevant when a project is expected to attract additional stakeholders and/or is receiving initial support/funding from an external body.