RECOVERY

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 

This situation results in either a duplicity of effort (overlaps) or a shortfall

of effort (holes). Neither is acceptable. However, when evaluating subcontracts

for holes and overlaps, consideration must be given to the fact that there will

be some perceived overlaps with respect to required processes. For instance, if

a certain quality program is required of the overall program, it must be flowed

down to each of the subcontractors. In this case, it might appear to be an overlap,

but it is not. It is, in fact, an appropriate allocation of requirements.

Obviously, the first thing to be done is to identify the holes and the overlaps.

You must have some idea that there are holes or overlaps or you wouldn’t be

here in the first place. Once again, create or review the Requirements Traceability

Matrix (RTM) and the Requirements Flow-Down Plan.

If you do not have an RTM, you can use Table 5-6 as a start. Modify the

table for your own needs. Just be sure not to change the concepts of content

and flow.

T a b l e 5 - 6 — R e q u i r e m e n t s T r a c e a b i l i t y M a t r i x ( R T M )

Unit System

SOW/ WBS S/C SOW/ Test Test

Spec Para Requirement Number Spec Para Number Para Monitor

SOW

4.3.1 Security 06-03-02 N/A T-0304 4.4.1 Smith

Spec

3.2.1 System weight 02-04-03 3.4.6 T-0045 3.4.1 Jones

shall be less

than 10,000

pounds

If you do not have an RFM, you can use the following table as a start. Modify

Table 5-7 on the following page for your own needs. Just be sure not to change

the concepts of content and flow.

56b (NO) Each subcontract does not contain all tasks allocated.

Each subcontract does not contain all tasks allocated when the tasks contained

in the subcontract are not equal to the assigned tasks from the Flow-

Down Matrix and/or the assigned tasks from the Requirements Traceability

Matrix (RTM).

T a b l e 5 - 7 — R e q u i r e m e n t s F l o w - D o w n M a t r i x ( R F M )

Company Design S/C Plan S/C A S/C B

Spec Para Reqt WBS Plan Para Para Para Para

1.3.2 02-03-01 5.3.2 5.3.2 1.3.2 1.3.2

1.3.3 02-03-02 5.3.3 5.3.3 1.3.3 N/A

1.3.4 02-03-03 5.3.4 5.3.4 1.3.4 1.3.4

QA Plan 04-01-01 8.2.6 8.2.6 4.3.6 4.3.6

CM Plan 05-01-01 9.3.1 9.3.1 5.6.2 5.6.2

RECOVERY

If you do not have an RFM you can use the following table as a start. Modify

Table 5-8 below for your own needs. Just be sure not to change the concepts of

content and flow.

T a b l e 5 - 8 — R e q u i r e m e n t s F l o w - D o w n M a t r i x ( R F M )

Company Design S/C Plan S/C A S/C B

Spec Para Reqt WBS Plan Para Para Para Para

1.3.2 02-03-01 5.3.2 5.3.2 1.3.2 1.3.2

1.3.3 02-03-02 5.3.3 5.3.3 1.3.3 N/A

1.3.4 02-03-03 5.3.4 5.3.4 1.3.4 1.3.4

QA Plan 04-01-01 8.2.6 8.2.6 4.3.6 4.3.6

CM Plan 05-01-01 9.3.1 9.3.1 5.6.2 5.6.2

If you do not have an RTM, you can use Table 5-9 on the following page as

a start. Modify the table for your own needs. Just be sure not to change the

concepts of content and flow.

57 PURCHASE ORDERS

57a (NO) The sum of all Purchase Orders does not reflect all

purchases to be made.

The sum of all Purchase Orders does not reflect all tasks allocated if the

totality of all Purchase Orders does not add up to the total requirements to be

purchased in the requirements document (contract) and in the Design Plan.

TEAMFLY

T a b l e 5 - 9 — R e q u i r e m e n t s T r a c e a b i l i t y M a t r i x ( R T M )

Unit System

SOW/ WBS S/C SOW/ Test Test

Spec Para Requirement Number Spec Para Number Para Monitor

SOW

4.3.1 Security 06-03-02 N/A T-0304 4.4.1 Smith

Spec

3.2.1 System weight 02-04-03 3.4.6 T-0045 3.4.1 Jones

shall be less

than 10,000

pounds

RECOVERY

This situation results in either a duplicity of effort (overlaps) or a shortfall

of effort (holes). Neither is acceptable. However, when evaluating purchase orders

for holes and overlaps, consideration must be given to the fact that there

will be some perceived overlaps with respect to required processes. For instance,

if the ‘‘Buy America’’ clause is required of the overall program, it must be flowed

down to each of the purchase orders. In this case, it might appear to be an

overlap, but it is not. It is, in fact, an appropriate allocation of requirements.

Obviously, the first thing to be done is to identify the holes and the overlaps.

You must have some idea that there are holes or overlaps or you wouldn’t be

here in the first place. Once again, create or review the Requirements Traceability

Matrix, the Requirements Flow-Down Plan and the Design Plan.

If you do not have an RTM, you can use the Table 5-10 on the following

page as a start. Modify the table for your own needs. Just be sure to not change

the concepts of content and flow.

If you do not have a Requirements Flow-Down Matrix, you can use Table

5-11 on the following page as a start. Modify the table for your own needs. Just

be sure to not change the concepts of content and flow.

57b (NO) Each Purchase Order is not complete.

Each purchase order is not complete unless it contains: reference number,

order date, vendor, contact information, name of item, stock (catalog) number,

number of units, price, delivery schedule, delivery location, and purchaser.

Note: Don’t wait for a failure here. It is a good idea to create a list of all

subcontracts and Purchase Orders and maintain a constant status of each. Post this

list in a conspicuous place such as the Planning/Status Room (commonly called the

War Room), available to all.