This wiki has undergone a migration to Confluence found Here
Difference between revisions of "ICTC SWOT-Analysis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Frankoemig (talk | contribs) (updated according to Kyoto WGM) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
*People want guidance on implementation and conformance | *People want guidance on implementation and conformance | ||
*We have qualified team members | *We have qualified team members | ||
| − | |||
==Weaknesses== | ==Weaknesses== | ||
| − | *We have limited resources | + | *We have very limited resources due to low attendance |
*Unwareness in other groups | *Unwareness in other groups | ||
| + | *low feedback on open work items | ||
| + | *inconsistent attendance at t-cons resulting in low interest | ||
==Opportunities== | ==Opportunities== | ||
*ICWG = central group to collect information from real projects | *ICWG = central group to collect information from real projects | ||
| + | *SAEAF initiative and SOA are new paradigms requiring new conformance guidance | ||
*Enhance guidance for v2.x | *Enhance guidance for v2.x | ||
*Creating guidance for v2.x and V3 | *Creating guidance for v2.x and V3 | ||
| Line 22: | Line 24: | ||
==Threats== | ==Threats== | ||
*waste of resources and inconsistent strategy in work packages | *waste of resources and inconsistent strategy in work packages | ||
| + | *lack of awareness of other groups (working on conformance specifications without notice) | ||
**other committees do "their work" without any notification | **other committees do "their work" without any notification | ||
**other committees do work, that should be done by ICWG | **other committees do work, that should be done by ICWG | ||
==Goals== | ==Goals== | ||
| − | *Create alignment between v2 | + | *Create alignment between v2 and V3 conformance |
**Same terminology in v2 and v3 | **Same terminology in v2 and v3 | ||
| − | * | + | *an FAQ for implementors (website) |
*Get more people involved in the ICWG | *Get more people involved in the ICWG | ||
| + | *engage with other groups like SD and SOA | ||
| + | *clarify with TSC about our mission and responsibilities | ||
Revision as of 03:17, 13 May 2009
Return to ICWG Projects.
This analysis is requested by the TSC. It requires input from the group members. Hence, ICWG members are invited and should feel free to add information.
The SWOT analysis should enumerate points/arguments assorted to the following topics:
Strength
- People want guidance on implementation and conformance
- We have qualified team members
Weaknesses
- We have very limited resources due to low attendance
- Unwareness in other groups
- low feedback on open work items
- inconsistent attendance at t-cons resulting in low interest
Opportunities
- ICWG = central group to collect information from real projects
- SAEAF initiative and SOA are new paradigms requiring new conformance guidance
- Enhance guidance for v2.x
- Creating guidance for v2.x and V3
- Example of conformance profile for V3
Threats
- waste of resources and inconsistent strategy in work packages
- lack of awareness of other groups (working on conformance specifications without notice)
- other committees do "their work" without any notification
- other committees do work, that should be done by ICWG
Goals
- Create alignment between v2 and V3 conformance
- Same terminology in v2 and v3
- an FAQ for implementors (website)
- Get more people involved in the ICWG
- engage with other groups like SD and SOA
- clarify with TSC about our mission and responsibilities
