Difference between revisions of "SSE Meeting 20"
From Service Systems Engineering Group Wiki
(Created page with "at Filton") |
(→Paper) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | at Filton | + | INCOSE UK Service Systems Engineering Working Group |
| + | |||
| + | Meeting: 6 June 2016, Rolls Royce, Filton, Bristol | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Attendees: == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Iain Cardow (RR), Alan Crawford (Babcock), Andrew Farncombe (INCOSE), John Davies (Leeds), Tim James (NHS), Edwin Swidenbank (Harmonic) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Actions from last meeting == | ||
| + | *Steve Ashlin to contact James Hillman No contact made. Decided to drop this action and talk to James at other meetings. | ||
| + | *All to review IBM Service Science community website. Seen as way of pushing IBM products rather than contributing to our work. | ||
| + | *All to look at case studies with regard to things we have come up with. Two case studies looked at - for ASEC2016 paper. | ||
| + | *All to review NAF 4.0 draft for Service Views. Looked at - NAF is going very much Service based, but no work being done on it. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Status of IS2016 paper == | ||
| + | *Paper submitted and accepted as paper 54. | ||
| + | * All release forms completed. | ||
| + | * John applied to attend by the deadline so the paper will go into the programme. | ||
| + | * Slides now moved onto IS2016 Powerpoint template. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == ASEC2016 == | ||
| + | === Paper === | ||
| + | * Aim of paper is to apply ideas/approaches from the ASEC2015/IS2016 papers to two Case Studies | ||
| + | * Abstract submitted and approved. | ||
| + | * Now need to provide 6 page paper by 10 June. More likely to be 12 pages. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Workshop === | ||
| + | Agreed to ask ofor a 45min workshop at the conference. We hope this is after the paper presentation and we can discuss what is needed to go forward. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Poster === | ||
| + | All Working Groups asked to submit poster - can be done using the slides in the Presentation. | ||
| + | |||
| + | === Way forward === | ||
| + | * John to draft paper and send out late on Tuesday 7 June (a lot of it is using existing words). | ||
| + | * Phone in 14-00 on 8 June to go through comments, Iain to set up. | ||
| + | * John to update and send into INCOSE on 10 June. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Discussions == | ||
| + | |||
| + | 'Rough' slides of the two Case Studies for ASEC2016 were used as focus for discussions. The following points were raised: | ||
| + | * Major issue with lack of Stakeholder Analysis and Requirements Definition | ||
| + | * Use of Standard Systems Engineering processes would have sorted this - but needs to be applied t=in a wider area than for Systems | ||
| + | * Business case was OK, but it was static needs to be used to manage the Service | ||
| + | * Not clear who owned the risk - who lost money when the service failed to make money. This was the Rental Companies but the didn't realise or have power to change things. | ||
| + | * Services have a wider scope in that Stakeholder actions and interactions need to be understood. | ||
| + | * ITIL provides a set of management activities that need to be considered/addressed such as Help Desk, reporting, | ||
| + | * Business models need to be maintained through the Service Life. | ||
| + | * for large Services - built from other Services, it is not clear where blame lies if a low level service fails causing the higher level service to fail. eg if you buy a book from Amazon and it doesn't arrive by the expected time - is the responsibility with Amazon, the original supplier, or the transport. The can be covered by SLAs. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | == Next Meeting == | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Monday 19 September 11-00 to 15-00 Rolls Royce, Filton. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:03, 9 June 2016
INCOSE UK Service Systems Engineering Working Group
Meeting: 6 June 2016, Rolls Royce, Filton, Bristol
Contents |
[edit] Attendees:
- Iain Cardow (RR), Alan Crawford (Babcock), Andrew Farncombe (INCOSE), John Davies (Leeds), Tim James (NHS), Edwin Swidenbank (Harmonic)
[edit] Actions from last meeting
- Steve Ashlin to contact James Hillman No contact made. Decided to drop this action and talk to James at other meetings.
- All to review IBM Service Science community website. Seen as way of pushing IBM products rather than contributing to our work.
- All to look at case studies with regard to things we have come up with. Two case studies looked at - for ASEC2016 paper.
- All to review NAF 4.0 draft for Service Views. Looked at - NAF is going very much Service based, but no work being done on it.
[edit] Status of IS2016 paper
- Paper submitted and accepted as paper 54.
- All release forms completed.
- John applied to attend by the deadline so the paper will go into the programme.
- Slides now moved onto IS2016 Powerpoint template.
[edit] ASEC2016
[edit] Paper
- Aim of paper is to apply ideas/approaches from the ASEC2015/IS2016 papers to two Case Studies
- Abstract submitted and approved.
- Now need to provide 6 page paper by 10 June. More likely to be 12 pages.
[edit] Workshop
Agreed to ask ofor a 45min workshop at the conference. We hope this is after the paper presentation and we can discuss what is needed to go forward.
[edit] Poster
All Working Groups asked to submit poster - can be done using the slides in the Presentation.
[edit] Way forward
- John to draft paper and send out late on Tuesday 7 June (a lot of it is using existing words).
- Phone in 14-00 on 8 June to go through comments, Iain to set up.
- John to update and send into INCOSE on 10 June.
[edit] Discussions
'Rough' slides of the two Case Studies for ASEC2016 were used as focus for discussions. The following points were raised:
- Major issue with lack of Stakeholder Analysis and Requirements Definition
- Use of Standard Systems Engineering processes would have sorted this - but needs to be applied t=in a wider area than for Systems
- Business case was OK, but it was static needs to be used to manage the Service
- Not clear who owned the risk - who lost money when the service failed to make money. This was the Rental Companies but the didn't realise or have power to change things.
- Services have a wider scope in that Stakeholder actions and interactions need to be understood.
- ITIL provides a set of management activities that need to be considered/addressed such as Help Desk, reporting,
- Business models need to be maintained through the Service Life.
- for large Services - built from other Services, it is not clear where blame lies if a low level service fails causing the higher level service to fail. eg if you buy a book from Amazon and it doesn't arrive by the expected time - is the responsibility with Amazon, the original supplier, or the transport. The can be covered by SLAs.
[edit] Next Meeting
- Monday 19 September 11-00 to 15-00 Rolls Royce, Filton.
