Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS11
ISDP Process Integration Subgroup (Team 2): DRAFT Consolidated “To
Be” State
2 September 2009
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS12
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]• Participation• General Policies
• Group Leadership• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct• IP Policy• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings• Consensus / Decision Making• Voting Procedures• Appeals• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups Central Operations (COPS) Process Oversight Committee (POC) GS1 Architecture Group (GAG) Board Committee for Standards (BCS)
• Process Flow• Community Interaction• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS13
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]• Participation• General Policies
• Group Leadership• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct• IP Policy• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings• Consensus / Decision Making• Voting Procedures• Appeals• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups Central Operations (POC) POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow• Community Interaction• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS14
Participation
• Participating Organizations and Individuals• Participants in GSMP are organizations (companies, etc)
• Any number of individuals from an organization may participate; however
• Each organization gets one vote, and is counted once for purposes of establishing group participation minimums, etc
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS15
Participation
• All work in GSMP is carried out in GSMP Groups
• Working Group• Group responsible for carrying out the system development work of GSMP, including development of
GS1 Standards, Guidelines etc.
• Any organization may join (subject to IP and other pre-requisites)
• Includes: Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) – standing Mission-Specific Working Group (MSWG) – exists ‘til work done, further classified:
– Combined Development Group (CDG) – requirements and standards (for narrower and/or less technical efforts)
– Requirements Development Group (RDG) – requirements only– Standards Development Group (SDG) – standards only
• Governance Group• Group responsible for ensuring that GSMP process is correctly executed and providing advice
• Does not define standards, guidelines, etc.
• Limited membership, by appointment or election
• Includes: Central Operations (COPS) Process Oversight Committee (POC) GS1 Architecture Group (GAG) Board Committee for Standards (BCS)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS16
Participation
Working Group Governance Group
Group Role Carry out the system development work of GSMP
Ensure that the GSMP process is correctly executedPrioritize work effortsResolve conflictsAdvise Working Groups
Number of Members Unlimited, subject to established minimums
Fixed (possibly subject to small variations)
Membership Open to any participating organization that meets established criteria
By appointment or election
Number of Groups Existing Varies through established process for forming and disbanding Working Groups
Fixed by the enumeration of Governance Groups in the manual
Relationship of an individual, his/her organization, and the group
An individual represents the interests of his/her organization in a Working Group, though should take broader community interests into account whenever possible
An individual represents the interests of the community in a Governance Group, informed by experiences within his/her own organization and the broader community of stakeholders of which his/her organization is a part
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS17
Categorization of Participating Organizations
• By relationship to GS1:• GO (staff), MO (staff), MO member in good standing (the most common
case), GO Affiliate, MO Affiliate
• By elective status w.r.t. a specific Working Group:• WG Member
• Opted-in to WG but not a WG member
• GSMP Member but not opted-in to WG
• MO Expert Group Member
• MO LCN Member
• Other (subscriber to MO, but not in above categories)
• By supply chain role:• End user (further subdivided: retailer, mfr, etc)
• Solution provider (further subdivided: hw, sw, etc)
• Auto-ID Labs
• Other SDO
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS18
Categorization and Participation
• By relationship to GS1:• MO and MO Member fully participate in GSMP
• GO, GO Affiliate, MO Affiliate may participate in meetings but do not vote
• By elective status:• See chart on next slide
• By supply chain role:• Roles are considered when establishing group minimums; e.g., WG
typically requires 2 end users (from each side of trading relationship), 2 MOs, 2 solution providers.
• Roles do not limit ability to participate and vote: all MO Members may participate and vote regardless of supply chain role (including solution providers)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS19
Elective Status and Participation
Access to community room / Work-in-Progress
Participates in community review
Votes following community review
IP Declarations Solicited
1. WG members Yes Yes Yes Yes
2. Opted-in Yes Yes Yes Yes
3. GSMP member but not opted-in
No access Y, but must sign declaration if comments are submitted
Yes Yes
4. MO expert group member
No direct access, but MO may share materials with Experts under agreement
No direct participation, but MO may present consolidated comment son behalf
No, but MO’s vote may take expert group’s opinion into account
Yes
5. LCN member No access (but LCN has access to an LCN folder)
No direct participation, but MO may conduct LCN survey with liaison
No, but MO’s vote may take LCN’s opinion into account
Yes
6. Other subscriber
No access No No No
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS110
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]• Participation• General Policies
• Group Leadership• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct• IP Policy• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings• Consensus / Decision Making• Voting Procedures• Appeals• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups Central Operations (COPS) POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow• Community Interaction• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS111
Group Leadership
• All GSMP groups have the following designated roles:• Group co-chairs
Two or more At least one present at each meeting Group may continue while a vacancy is being filled
• Group facilitator A GO staff person Must be present at each meeting (but may designate a
substitute)
• All group decisions are by consensus; co-chairs participate with other members equally in this regard
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS112
Anti-Trust Caution and Code of Conduct
• All participation subject to GS1 Anti-Trust Caution and Code of Conduct• TBD for Team 4: name of “Anti-Trust Caution” – concern that
the term “anti-trust” is US-specific
• Both are read at start of every meeting
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS113
IP Policy
• IP Policy Agreement• Organization must sign in order to join GSMP
• Provisions only operative upon “opt in” to a specific WG
• Opt-In• Obligates organization to IP Policy w.r.t. output of a WG, in exchange
for the right to participate and access WIP
• See next slide for opt-in methods
• Comment submission form• Used in community review for comments from organizations not
opted-in
• IP Declaration• Used during IP declaration period to declare intention not to license
necessary claims on a royalty free basis
Subject to Team 4 Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS114
IP Policy: Opt in and opt out
• Explicit opt-in:• Organization signs an explicit agreement for each WG to which it
opts in
• Automatic opt-in:• Organization signs automatic opt-in agreement, which opts it in to all
WGs existing at that time, and automatically opts in to any new WG formed with no further action required
• Explicit opt-out:• Organization explicitly opts out of previously opted in WG
• Can do this to exclude certain WGs after automatic opt-in
• Cancellation of automatic opt-in:• Cancels all existing opt-ins
• Must explicitly opt-in thereafter
Subject to Team 4 Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS115
Meeting Rules (Teleconference and Physical Meeting)
• Written agenda distributed via community room in advance• Calendar invites sent as soon as date is known• Written agenda distributed at least 3 days in advance of weekly meeting or 1
week in advance of less frequent meeting• Minutes taken
• Includes: name & org of all attendees, record of business transacted sufficient for non-attendees to keep up
• Distributed to WG via community room afterward (facilitator decides whether to also issue an e-mail notification)
• Preferably posted before next meeting, but within two weeks in any case• All attending organizations must be WG members and opted in• Participation minimums met.
• Meeting may continue below minimums,• …but no voice votes may be taken• Continued failure to meet minimums escalated to POC by facilitator; POC
may also notify IE• Group encouraged to use community room e-mail to carry on discussion
between meetings
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS116
Decision Methods
• Group consensus is overriding principle.• Four methods used:
Decision Type When Used Decision Method
Ordinary Working Decision
This is what a Working Group does in the normal course of developing work products.
Most ordinary working decisions are achieved through informal consensus during Working Group meetings (voice affirmation, or “any opposed?”) Escalate to virtual vote if needed (which supplements votes already tallied by voice)
Process-mandated Voice Motion
Decision to begin formal WG review prior to community review
Voice vote subject to participation minimums. Escalate to virtual vote if needed.
Process-mandated Working Group Virtual Vote
Decision to advance to community review or to ratification(Exception: on “accumulated” path, requirements work ends with a voice motion)
Virtual vote using community room. 7 day duration. Only WG members participate.
Community Virtual Vote (following Community Review)
Completion of work product following community review and addressing of comments.
Virtual vote using community room. 14 day duration. Participation includes all GSMP members (must have signed IP policy).
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS117
Voting Details
• Process-mandated voice motions:• Are subject to participation minimums
• If not met, use group virtual vote instead
• Group virtual vote:• Before vote closes, do not reveal voting tallies; only reveal
comments that accompany votes, without disclosing who submitted them.
• After vote closes, disclose the name of each company that voted and what its vote was (along with any comments submitted)
• Community virtual vote:• Same notes as for group virtual vote
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS118
Appeals
• Appeals of due process• Aggrieved organization first appeals to group co-chairs and facilitator• If not satisfied, then to POC (BCS also notified that POC appeal is in progress)• If not satisfied, then to BCS• BCS decision is final
• Appeals of Voting Result• If a voting organization believes that the outcome of any particular vote has been unduly
influenced by one stakeholder group, and has thereby resulted in a non-optimal outcome, they can escalate this concern by appealing the vote to the group co-chairs and facilitator
• If not satisfied, then to POC (BCS and industry director also notified that POC appeal is in progress)
• If not satisfied, then to the BCS• BCS decision is final• Automatic appeal of community vote to POC under specified conditions (next slide)• Continuation of process suspended until appeals resolved
• Appeals of Architecture Questions• A group may seek architectural clarification from the GAG• If not satisfied, may appeal to BCS• BCS decision is final
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS119
Automatic Appeal of Community Vote
• If an identifiable stakeholder group (e.g. supply side, demand side, 3PLS, MO, SP) participates in a community vote with the following conditions:• A predominance of the stakeholder group did not participate
in the group via opt-in; and
• The stakeholder group’s voting was uniform and divergent from the predominance of the other stakeholder groups; and
• The result of the overall vote would be different in absence of the stakeholder group in question
• …then the vote is automatically appealed to the POC to determine if undue influence was present and remedial action is necessary.
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS120
Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement
• An organization may lose right to participate in group meetings and vote if:• Continued anti-trust violation after being advised of violation• Continued code of conduct violation after being advised of violation• Unauthorized disclosure of WG materials
• Process:• Co-chairs and POC discuss with organization (the individual, as well as the
organization’s primary contact if different)• If decision is to suspend rights, all WG facilitators are notified, and
organization told what it must do to regain rights• Organization may appeal to BCS, whose decision is final
• Reinstatement:• Organization demonstrates to POC that reinstatement criteria are met• If POC decides to reinstate, all WG facilitators are notified and organization
regains rights• If POC decides against, organization may appeal to BCS, whose decision is
final
Subject to Team 4 Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS121
Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• WG Members and opted-in organizations have full access to community room, including:• Documents (final and work in progress, minutes, etc)
• E-mail archive
• WG calendar
• WG roster
• An organization may not share above material with any organization that is not a WG member or opted-in, except by permission of GS1 legal
• Exceptions:• All GSMP members have access to documents that have been submitted for community
review
• MOs may share materials with expert group members, under agreement
• All ratified standards, guidelines, etc, are available to the general public on the GS1 website in the Knowledge Center.
• Notwithstanding the above, all GSMP members will have visibility into what work efforts are underway and what is their status with respect to the process flow.
Subject to Team 4 Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS122
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]• Participation• General Policies
• Group Leadership• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct• IP Policy• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings• Consensus / Decision Making• Voting Procedures• Appeals• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups Central Operations (COPS) POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow• Community Interaction• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS123
Organization
• All work in GSMP is carried out in GSMP Groups
• Working Group• Group responsible for carrying out the system development work of GSMP, including development of
GS1 Standards, Guidelines etc.
• Any organization may join (subject to IP and other pre-requisites)
• Includes: Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) – standing Mission-Specific Working Group (MSWG) – exists ‘til work done, further classified:
– Combined Development Group (CDG) – requirements and standards (for narrower and/or less technical efforts)
– Requirements Development Group (RDG) – requirements only– Standards Development Group (SDG) – standards only
• Governance Group• Group responsible for ensuring that GSMP process is correctly executed and providing advice
• Does not define standards, guidelines, etc.
• Limited membership, by appointment or election
• Includes: Central Operations (COPS) Process Oversight Committee (POC) GS1 Architecture Group (GAG) Board Committee for Standards (BCS)
TBD: Specific groups that exist are TBD pending “committee landscape” discussion
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS124
Relationship of Mission-Specific Working Groups to Standards Maintenance Groups
• Mission-specific group is typically related to one or more identified SMGs• In some cases, for example a mission-specific group working on a brand new
area of standards, there may be no related SMGs; this is expected to be rare. In many such cases, the mission-specific group may become an SMG once it completes an initial standard, if justified by ongoing community interest.
• The participation/voting minimums for the mission-specific group include at least two members of each related SMG. (The same people may also be the ones who meet the other minimums.)
• A member of each related SMG is identified as either a co-chair of the mission-specific WG, or, if that is not possible, as a designated liaison member of the mission-specific WG to the SMG
• During finalization, the mission-specific Working Group gives a presentation of the work to the related SMG(s), and encourages the SMG members' participation in the upcoming community review
• SMG(s) is part of community review, and the vote thereafter
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS125
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]• Participation• General Policies
• Group Leadership• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct• IP Policy• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings• Consensus / Decision Making• Voting Procedures• Appeals• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups Central Operations (COPS) POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow• Community Interaction• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS126
System Development Process per OE 3a
1 Statement of Business Need
2 Requirements Development
3 GS1 System Development
4 Deployment
Clear Definition Of Need
Ratified Standards, Guideline, Approved Solutions, Services
Publications, Marketing, Support Tools and Training
Requirements
Document
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS127
Graphics
Do Something = An activity performed by a group
Doc = A document or other deliverable. An output of one activity, the inputto another
5 = An open issue identified in the Team 2 issues list (issue 5 in this example)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS128
ISDP “To Be” – 50,000 foot view
WorkRequest
ISDP 1b:
process initiation
Charter
ISDP 2: require-ments
BRAD
ISDP 3: stan-dards
UnratifiedStandard
ISDP 4: deploy-ment
Like old GSMP “change request” or EPC “enhancement request”
Includes:-Work request(s)-Resource needs-WG assignment (new or standing)-WG chairs (if new)-Settings for ISDP “knobs”-Expected timeline
SBN
ISDP 1a: stmt of need
SBN
Primarily IE Primarily SD
Statement of Business Need, similar to old GSMP Business Case Document
Standard
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS129
Handling of Parallel Work Streams
• Many-to-many mapping of Work Requests to Chartered work efforts:• Related work requests may be combined into a single work effort
• One work request may best be split into multiple work efforts
• Variety in the BRAD-to-Standard transition:• “Narrow” path possible when impact of BRAD on standards is clearly
identifiable before BRAD work begins (corresponds to GSMP “simple” process)
• “Accumulated” path used when finished BRADs are accumulated over time then consolidated into a single work effort (as in GDSN)
• Normal path provides for many-to-many mapping of BRADs to standards developments:
Related BRADs may result in a consolidated change to a standard One BRAD may result in parallel changes to several standards Allows decision of which standard(s) are affected to be made in context
of fully documented requirements
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS130
ISDP “To Be” – 40,000 foot view
WR
WR
WR
PCD
DraftCharter
DraftCharter
DraftCharter
Work Work
Work
Work
BRAD
BRAD
BRAD
Work Std
Std
Std
PCD
Work
Work
ISDP 1: stmt of need ISDP 2: require-ments
ISDP 3: stds
Work Std
“Accumulated” BRAD path
“Narrow” BRAD path
= Prioritize, Consolidate, DistributePCD
Work = Work done by a WG, including approvals, voting, ratification, etc (detailed in later slides)
5
DevCharter
Work
Work
DevCharter
DevCharter
34
Charter, SBN
Charter, SBN
Charter, SBN
Work
Work
SBN
SBN
WRPCD
WR
If SBN needed
Primarily IE Primarily SD
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS131
Charter Ingredients
• Every ISDP work effort is governed by a charter, which specifies
• Title of work effort• References the Work Request(s) to be addressed• Specifies GS1 resources needed• What WG is responsible (standing, or new mission-specific)• WG chairs (for a mission-specific WG)• Settings for ISDP “knobs” (see next slide)• Expected timeline, expressed in terms of ISDP milestones
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS132
ISDP “knobs” specified in Charter
• Work Group:• Standing “Standards Maintenance Group” (SMG) (specify which one) –
requires justification against established criteria• New mission-specific group (specify a name for it, and to which SMG, if any,
it reports)• Stakeholder participation minimums
• Identify specific types of end user, solution provider, if appropriate• Provide justification if default minimums are to be waived/altered
• BRAD-to-Standards transition:• Normal path (hand off to standards WG via PCD process)• “Narrow” path (same WG continues from requirements development to
standards development) – must specify which standard(s) will be affected• “Accumulated” path (stops at finished BRAD; at specified trigger such BRADs
are consolidated and entered as a new Work Order)• “Narrow” and “Accumulated” path require justification against established
criteria• Prototype testing: yes or no• Conformance requirements: yes or no• Collateral deliverables needed: implementation plan, impact analysis,
other collateral
6
6
Development charter items
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS133
Setting of Process “knobs”
• It is role of IE and POC (with assistance from COPS) to determine the appropriate process “knob” settings for each work effort.• IE/POC responsible for establishing and maintaining criteria
by which these decisions are made
• Starting point for these criteria are given on next few slides
• Charter for work effort records these decisions
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS134
GSMP Work Order Spectrum
• Maintenance-Related Order:• A small change to an existing standard or guideline that can readily
be handled by a standing committee
• Examples include: Errata, New EDI code values, new symbol placement rules, GDSN validation Rules
• Development-Related Order:• The creation of a new standard/guideline or significant change to
existing standard/guideline.
• A standards or guidelines change that spans topic areas of GS1 Standards
• Examples include: GDSN Extension, HF standard, EPCIS enhancement for layers, New Bar Code symbology, new XML Message
Maintenance-related Development-related
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS135
Maintenance-Related Versus Development-Related Orders
• These terms are intended to give broad awareness of the nature of work in a given group. They do not represent explicit categorizations and it is foreseen that many work efforts may not readily fall into one category or another.
• Work efforts obviously at one extreme or the other will be dealt with through “preset” GSMP process settings
• Work efforts that are not obviously one or the other will be dealt with procedurally in the GSMP by an analysis to find the optimal way to address the specific work effort which will be captured in the group Charter and approved by the POC
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS136
Spectrum for Standards & Guidelines Content
• Application-Related Standards/Guidelines• GS1 Standards/guidelines that primarily deal with new combinations
of business content with existing business-context neutral technologies
• Examples include: new Business Message Standards (XML) based on existing design patterns, GDSN Extensions (Hardlines, Books, etc.), Traceability Process Standard
• Technology-Related Standards/Guidelines• GS1 Standards defining data, messages, and interfaces that are
business context-neutral (primarily reusable across many business processes), along with GS1 Guidelines for their use
• Examples include: XML “SBDH” (Standard Business Document Header), Certificate Profile, Air Interface Protocols
Application-Related Technology-Related
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS137
Application-Related vs Technology-Related Standards / Guidelines
• The terms Application-related and Technology-related are intended for general awareness of the TYPE of user expertise needed to bring about the optimal standard design.
• These terms will help to clarify why some work efforts are handled in one group or two.
• Application-related Standards, as they focus on development of business content utilizing existing technologies, are generally developed in a single group which creates the requirements AND approves the subsequent standards, or combined with other standards groups working on similar requirements
• Technology-related Standards, as they focus on business context neutral technologies, are developed in two groups, the first made up of business users who create the business requirements, and technical groups who develop a technical standard
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS138
Clarification of Application-related vs. Technology-related Standards
• As earlier stated, these terms are intended to give broad awareness of the nature of work in a given group. They do not represent explicit categorizations and it is foreseen that many work efforts may not readily fall into one category or another.
• Work efforts obviously at one extreme or the other will be dealt with through “preset” GSMP process settings
• Work efforts that are not obviously one or the other will be dealt with procedurally in the GSMP by an analysis to find the optimal way to address the specific work effort which will be captured in the group Charter and approved by the POC
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS139
GSMP Process Settings Decision Tool
Maintenance-related
Development-related
Technology-related
Application-related
Typically addressed by a new group that both analyzes requirements and develops the standard/guideline
(“narrow path” + “mission-specific group”)
Typically addressed by a new group that analyzes requirements, followed by a second new group that develops the
standard/guideline (possibly in response to several related requirements streams)
(“normal path” + “mission-specific group”)
Typically ad-
dressed by a
standing group
(“narrow path” + SMG)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS140
Group Naming Based on Process Settings
Change Type
Group Group Lifetime
Process Flow Steps
Output
Maintenance Related(yellow box)
Standards Maintenance Group (SMG)
Standing 2+3+4 Approved Standards or Guidelines Change
Application Related(pink box)
Combined Development Group (CDG)
Mission Specific
2+3+4 Approved Business Requirements and Standard/ Guideline
Technology Related(blue box)
Requirements Development Group (RDG)
Mission Specific
2 Approved Business Requirements
Standards or Guideline Development Group (SDG or GDG)
Mission Specific
3+4 Approved Standard or Guideline (new or change to existing)
These names are more specific ways of describing a mission-specific WG, based on the process steps it is responsible for
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS141
Step 1: 25,000 Feet
Work request
with SBN Charter
Work request, no SBN
PCD
DraftCharter
Draft and issue call-to-action
ISDP 1b: process initiation [Dev]
Form WG
Review of SBN by WG to ensure it’s understood (consult with
IE as needed)
Vote to advance to next step
Call to Action
New C-Room
Omitted if standing SMG to be used
POCIE
SBN
SBN
IE
IE
Industry Roadmap
Ongoing Engagement with a given
Industry Work Request
Form SBN Team
Draft SBN
SBN Finalize SBN
PCD
PendingSBN
Work request originating from other
than IE
If a WR was submitted without a SBN, and it is substantial enough to warrant one, it is sent back to IE to review and create the SBN
ISDP 1a: stmt of need [IE]
Revise SBN if needed
71
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS142
Step 2: 25,000 Feet
BRADCharter,
SBNWork on BRAD
ISDP 2: requirements
Finalize(*) BRAD
Community review (*) of BRAD
Community
GAG
(*) “Finalize” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed on slide 14
SMGIf WG is mission-
specific reporting to an SMG
(*) “Community review” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed slide 15
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS143
Step 3: 25,000 Feet
BRAD
Work on Standard
ISDP 3: system development
Finalize(*) Standard
Community review(*)
Community
Optional
GAG
PCD
Prototype testing
(*) “Finalize” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed on slide 14
UnratifiedStandard
Finalize(*) changes
POC
DevCharter
BRAD “Narrow” path
(*) “Community review” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed on slide 15
SMG
1st IP Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS144
Step 4: 25,000 Feet
ISDP 4: system development
Finalize(*) all
collateral
Community review(*)
Community
GAG
POC Ratification
(*) “Finalize” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed on slide 14
POC BCS
RatifiedStandard
(*) “Community review” implies a certain sequence of review and voting steps detailed on slide 15
SMG
2nd IP Review
Board Ratification
Other Step 4
collateral
Work on collateral
Confirm collateral
list
UnratifiedStandard
Marketing, IE
Ongoing revisions
to collateral
POC
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS145
Step 4 open issues• Should impact assessment wait until Step 4, or be done in Step 3 prior to the first community review of draft standard?
• Rationale: we really ought to have thought through issues of compatibility and transition before the technical details have been finalized
• What is the complete list of collateral materials that might be created in Step 4? (see also next slide)• Impact assessment (but see above)
• Value proposition – based on SBN
• Scenarios / use cases
• Migration Plan
• Implementation plan
• Implementation guide – based on BRAD together with standard
• Marketing collateral
• Outreach
• How does WG engage non-WG resources in Step 4 (e.g., other SPs, IE, Marketing, other end users, MOs)? What if any IP policy issues arise from this?
• In most cases, this does not need to be formalized. WG can solicit help from outside if needed.
• If WG needs help from others, those others must either (a) opt in to WG; or (b) only be presented with work artifacts that have received prior community review
• Scope of community review in Step 4 – what is reviewed?• Andrew: I would allow everything to be reviewed. This is in line with our principles
• While the standard or guideline (previously reviewed in Step 3) is made available at this stage for reference, comments are not solicited on that and changes will not be made in Step 4.
• Scope of ratifications in Step 4 – standard only or also the collateral materials?• Andrew: implementation guidance, value proposition, migration plans and scenarios are ratified. I think marketing materials should be
excluded because opinions will be so subjective that consensus will be hard to achieve
• Michele: but what does “ratification” mean for other deliverables? For a standard, it means the standard cannot be changed without due process, but this may not be appropriate for guidance, migration plans, etc, which may evolve as they are used
• Conclusion: board does not “ratify” collateral. POC approves, and collateral may change post-ratification if needed
• Criteria for omitting some or all Step 4 deliverables• Andrew: Obviously errata and new codes don't need much if anything. Items coming out of CDGs or SDGs should have at least a value
proposition, operational guidance and scenarios
• Should Step 4 begin with an assessment of interest – do we want to continue with collateral development and ratification or have the needs of end users shifted since the work was initiated?
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS146
Step 4 deliverables
• Impact statement (move this to Step 3?)• Back compatibility, migration issues, etc
• Qualitative assessment of the size of the impact – difficulty, number of hours, etc.
• Value Proposition – based on SBN• tells members why they should bother to implement the standard in terms they can take to their budget holders for approval.
• is also the item that product marketing and business development functions in larger MOs will find useful in their communications
• Scenarios / use cases• To communicate the way that the standard is intended to be used (not in a restrictive way), helping to avoid divergent interpretations of
what the standard is
• Implementation / Migration plans. • If the output is a development of an existing standard (an update or a new version) migration planning guidance will be needed. How are
existing users supposed to move from existing standards to the new and at what pace? Is there a need for concerted community action? Do two (or more versions) co-exist and what are the sunrise and sunset dates?
• If the output is a new standard, implementation guidance will be needed. How are users expected to carry out their initial adoption of the standard and at what pace? Is there a need for concerted community action? Is there a defined sunrise date? Is there any relationship to existing standards, and if so, what is the impact on implementations of the existing standard due to adoption of the new standard?
• Including revisions to GS1 Services, if applicable; i.e. coordinating end user activity with activity of GS1 in deploying/upgrading GS1 Services
• Implementation guide – based on BRAD and the standard• For each business requirement, show how the relevant part of the standard can be used in an implementation to meet the requirement
• FAQs• Marketing collateral
• “Sales pitch”
• Analysis of other business needs for which the new standards or guidelines may play a role
• Materials related to overall GS1 strategy
• Outreach plan• Webinars
• Press releases
• Newsletters
• Bulletins
• E-mail distribution lists
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS147
Document Maturity Levels
• A document under development (BRAD in Step 2, Standard in Step 3, Collateral in Step 4) has a maturity level that indicates how far along the process it is
• Maturity levels are “ratchets” that ensure a one-pass flow:• At a given maturity level, a document may undergo revision
as development is performed or comments are processed
• A document’s maturity level advances at the completion of a process milestone marked by a vote, approval, or ratification
• A document never moves to an earlier maturity level Rare exception: POC may force rework due to IP claim or other
dire circumstance
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS148
Document Maturity Levels
WG development
WG review (+ GAG if no community review)
Community, GAG review
Prototyping
POC ratification
BCS ratification
Publication
Draft
Draft(penultimate)
Community ReviewDraft
Prototype Standard
Unratified Standard
Unratified Standard
Ratified Standard
Standard,prototyped
Draft
Draft(penultimate)
Community Review Draft
Unratified Standard
Unratified Standard
Ratified Standard
Standard,not prototyped
Final Document
Draft
Draft(penultimate)
Community Review Draft
BRAD, guideline, etc, with
community review
Final Document
Draft
Draft(penultimate)
BRAD, guideline, etc, without
community review What takes place while at that maturity level
Document Type
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS149
“Finalize” process
• Used to progress a document through a significant process gate (completion of development/test work)
Work on Document
Draft
Group Motion to Begin WG
Review
Draft (penultimate)
WG collects comments
using comment
form
WG resolves
comments
RevisedPenultimate
Draft
Group Vote to
Progress
CRD or FinalWorking
Draft
“Finalize” steps
“Motion” = takes place on concall or meeting; 2/3 of attendees “aye” + established minimums required to move forward. WG may decide to do this via Kavi ballot instead (and must do so if
minimums not met during a voice vote)
“Vote” = via Kavi; 2/3 “yes” votes + established minimums required to move forward. Exception: for finalization of requirements on “accumulated” path, this may be done via
concall motion instead
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS150
“Community Review” process
• Used to solicit and respond to community input
Community Review
Draft
Announce and
distribute to community
WG resolves
comments
RevisedComm. Review
Draft
Commu-nity Vote
to Progress
Prototype Standard
“Community Review” steps
“Vote” = via Kavi; 2/3 “yes” votes + established minimums required to move forwardParticipants in this vote include WG plus all community members who have signed IP policy
Community provides
comments via
comment form
Unratified Standard
Final Document
For a standard subject to prototype/pilot
For a standard not subject to prototype/pilot
For a BRAD, guideline, or other deliverable
Community
GAG
SMGIf WG is mission-
specific reporting to an SMG
Community
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS151
Putting it Together – 10,000 feet
WR
WR
PCD
Charter WD
Draft and issue call-to-action
Form WG
Final Charter
Final Charter,
SBN
Work on BRAD
BRAD CRD
Final BRAD
BRADPCD
BRAD
Work on Standard
Std CRD
BRAD Draft
Std D
Prototype Standard
Omitted if standing SMG to be used
SBN Finalize SBN
Finalize Standard
Prototype / pilot
Finalize Changes
Unratified Standard
Unratified Standard
Ratified Standard
Optional
ISDP 1: Statement of
Need
ISDP 2: Requirements
ISDP 3: Standards
“Narrow” path
“Aggregated” path
POC BCS
GAGCommunity
GAGCommunity
POC
POC
Finalize BRAD
Community Review BRAD
Community Review
Standard
POC Ratification
BCS Ratification
Dev Charter
Final SBN
Omitted if “fast” path used
IE
Review SBN
IE
IE
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS152
Putting it together – 5,000 feet
WR
WR
PCD
Charter WD
Draft and issue call-to-action
Form WG
Review SBN
Omitted if standing SMG to be used
Group Motion
SBNCollect, resolve
comments
SBNGroup Vote
Final Charter
Final Charter,
SBNWork on BRAD
Group Motion
BRAD PD
Collect, resolve
comments
BRAD PD
Group Vote
BRAD CRD
Ann’ce, Collect, resolve comm’ty
comments
BRAD CRD
Community Vote
Final BRAD
Finalize charter
Finalize BRADCommunity review BRAD
BRADPCD
BRAD
Work on Standard
Group Motion
Std PD
Collect, resolve
comments
Std PD
Group Vote
Std CRD
Ann’ce, Collect, resolve comm’ty
comments
Std CRD
Community Vote
P
Finalize StandardCommunity review
BRAD Draft
Std D
P Prototype/ pilot
Collect, resolve
comments
P Group Vote
Finalize Changes
U POC Ratification
U BCS Ratification
Ratified Standard
Optional
ISDP 1
ISDP 3
ISDP 2
POC BCS
GAGCommunity
GAG
Community
POC
POC
“Narrow” path
“Aggregated” path
Dev Charter
IE
Final SBN
IE
IE
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS153
IP Review
• 1st 30-day IP review begins when we reach Prototype Standard, and runs concurrently with prototype/test.
• 2nd 30-day IP review begins when we reach Unratified Standard, and runs concurrently with POC review
• POC review may complete with a “conditional approval,” after which:• If no IP claims are made, std progresses directly to board ratification
• If IP claims are made, POC reviews again, and decides either Send std back for rework in light of IP claims; or Progress to board ratification with IP issues noted
• If no prototype/test phase, then 1st IP review is omitted• Release of std to ISO or other SDO takes place after 2nd IP
review completes
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS154
Deliverables: 1,000 foot view
• ISDP 1: statement of need• Charter + SBN
• Original Work Requests referenced by charter
• Call to Action (if applicable, for archival purposes)
• Record of group vote to advance
• Minutes of all meetings
• ISDP 2: requirements• Final BRAD
• Record of group vote and (if applicable) community vote
• Completed comment resolution form(s)
• Minutes of all meetings
• ISDP 3: standards• Final standard
• Record of all group and community votes
• Completed comment resolution forms from WG review, community review, post-pilot/prototype review
• Mapping of requirements to final standard
• Conformance requirements (if applicable)
• Minutes of all meetings
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS155
Mapping to OE 3a process flow
Industry EngagementStatement of Business Need
Ad HocGroup
Prioritization & Feasibility
Step
2- Req
Step
3 - Dev
Step 1
Step 4Deployment
Ad Hoc Group
Ad HocGroup
StandingGroup
Simple ChangeRequests
Complex Application Stds
Complex Tech Standards
Solutions and Services
Ste
p 2
an
d 3
– R
eq
an
d D
ev
Ste
p 2
an
d 3
– R
eq
an
d D
ev
WorkIn
Progress
Sys
tem
s D
evel
op
men
t
ISDP 1 (PDC step)
ISDP 2 + 3, SMG & “Narrow path” selected
ISDP 2 + 3, “Narrow path”
selected
ISDP 2 + 3, PDC step between
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS156
Other Process Variations
• GSMP “project”• Same ISDP process used• Timelines and resources may be different
• Sector project• Same ISDP process used
• Guideline• Same ISDP steps are used, except:
Deliverable in Step 2 is an outline for what use cases will be addressed by guideline, not “requirements” in the same sense as the word is used in standards development
Deliverable in Step 3 is the guideline Prototyping in Step 3 is almost certainly omitted
• GAG review in Step 3 is essential to confirm that the output is truly a guideline, not a standard, according to the GAG’s established definition
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS157
Unresolved Process Issues
• TBD: Criteria for when it is acceptable to specify the “narrow” and “accumulated” paths.• Partly addressed on Slide 39
• TBD: Criteria for when it is acceptable to route work to an SMG rather than an mission-specific working group• Partly addressed on Slide 39
• TBD: Under what circumstances can Step 2 be omitted or have a lighter weight output than a full BRAD (or outline, in the case of a guideline)?
• TBD: Policy for acknowledging contributors on finished standards
• TBD: Identify exception conditions in process flow (e.g., if call to action fails to gather sufficient interest)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS158
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Receive, process and monitor change
request
GSMP C1.1
Create & announce a call to action
GSMP C1.2
Form volunteer user group (e.g.,
requirements group, work group)
GSMP C1.3
Review & agree with the stated business need
GSMP C1.4Gate 1
Motion to Progress Opens
work order & progresses to
step 2
Collect Business and Technical Requirements
EPC 1
Form JRG
EPC 2
Technical Definition with End Users
(JRG)
EPC 3
Sources:BusinessTechnicalPrivacy
Note: not explicit in EPC SDP, but likely done as part of EPC Step 3
Architecture Review
WR
WR
PCD
Charter WD
Draft and issue call-to-
actionForm WG
Review SBN
Final Charter,
SBN
Omitted if standing SMG to be used
SBN WD
POCISDP 1
Finalize SBN
IE?
IE? IE?
Omitted on “narrow” path
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS159
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Gather and analyze requirements
GSMP C2.1
Assign context, modeling
components & standard definitions
from GDD
GSMP C2.2
Complete review of Requirements
Documents
GSMP C2.3
Gate 2Motion to Progress
Progresses work to step 3
Technical Definition with End Users
(JRG)
EPC 3
End User Requirements
Development (JRG)
EPC 4
End User Requirements
Development (JRG)
EPC 4 (cont’d)
BSC & TSC Approval of JRG
Requirements
EPC 5
Architecture Review
Note: no EPC equivalent
Architecture Review
Final Charter Work on BRAD
BRAD LCWD
Final BRADBRAD
WD
GAGCommunityGAG if not later
Finalize BRAD
Community Review BRAD
Optional
ISDP 2
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS160
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Prepare appropriate GS1 documents
GSMP C3.1
Facilitate WG Review
GSMP 3.2
Resolve WG review comments
GSMP C3.3
Gate 3Motion To Progress
Progresses work to Step 4
Working Group Formation
EPC 6
Standards Development
EPC 7
Note: in EPC SDP, comparable steps are identified as sub-steps within EPC step 7
Note: in GSMP, same WG does requirements and technical development. In EPC SDP, JRG does requirements, then technical WGs are formed as needed – latter not necessarily 1:1 with JRG
BRADPCD
BRAD
Work on Standard
Std LCWD
Std WD
Finalize Standard
“Narrow” path
POC
Dev Charter
ISDP 3 (part)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS161
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Facilitate public review with BRG
comments
GSMP C4.1
Resolve public review and BRG
comments
GSMP 4.2
Facilitate eBallot
GSMP C4.3
Gate 4Ratification
Recommendation by Process
Group
Action Group Review and
Approval
EPC 8
Motion To Progress to
eBallot
Architecture Review Initiate 1st 30-day IP review
Note: no GSMP equivalent
Note: in EPC SDP, comparable steps are identified as sub-steps within EPC step 8 Note: corresponds to EPC Steps 10 & 11, next slide
Architecture Review
GAGCommunity
Community Review Standard
Std LCWD
ISDP 3 (part)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS162
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Process call to action for pilot
test team
GSMP C5.1
Develop pilot test
plan
GSMP 5.2Gate 4
Ratification Recommendatio
n by Process Group
Prototype Test of Specification
EPC 9
Imple-ment
pilot test plan
GSMP 5.3
Report pilot test results
GSMP 5.4
Develop & present
recommen-dations
GSMP 5.5Gate 5
Motion to Progress Final pilot test report
Committee Review (BSC &
TSC)
EPC 10
Board Ratification
EPC 11
Note: in EPC SDP, ratification recommended only after prototype
phase completes
Note: in EPC SDP, prototyping usually leads to a revised draft
Initiate final 30-day IP review
Note: no GSMP equivalentPossible submission to other
standards body
Note: no GSMP equivalent
Candidate Standard Prototype / pilot Finalize
Changes
Proposed Standard
Recom- mended Standard
Ratified Standard
Optional
POC BCS
POC Ratificati
on
BCS Ratification
ISDP 3 (part) 1st IP Review 2nd IP Review
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS163
Old GSMP (Complex), EPC SDP, New GSMP Compared
Close work order
GSMP 6.1
Post approved standard or solution
to website
GSMP 6.2
Announce posting of the standard or
solution
GSMP 6.3
Prepare board ratification notice
GSMP 6.4
Note: Similar things happen for EPCglobal standards, but they are not formal steps in the EPC SDP
ISDP 4 (TBD)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS164
Step 4
• Criteria for including collateral work in the ISDP process manual:• Interaction with the WG
Pre-ratification (Steps 1, 2, 3) Post-ratification (Step 4)
• Steps that need to be executed consistently, and with visibility as to what steps have been completed
• Interdependences – e.g., ratification of Standard A requires changes to Guideline B, Training Program C, etc
• Things that are mission critical to deployment of standard; e.g.: Solution provider program Training material Policy maker outreach Certification/test services Marketing comm collateral Migration plans (e.g., version handing, sunset dates, etc)
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS165
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]
• Participation
• General Policies• Group Leadership
• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct
• IP Policy
• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings
• Consensus / Decision Making
• Voting Procedures
• Appeals
• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement
• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow
• Community Interaction
• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS166
ISDP Process Team 2 – Community Sub-Team Status
Templates Proposed to be state Next Steps
Call to Action Template
Define and Create a new CTA Template
Post new model development
Process Change Notification
New Template Post new model development
Press Releases Proposal submitted Post new model – resolve comments and incorporate new model into proposal
Newsletters Create New Template Post new model
Member on/off boarding
Proposal submitted Post new model – resolve comments and incorporate new model into proposal
Charter Template Define and create a new GSMP process Charter Template based on the existing EPCglobal charter, GS1 PDD, GDSN BCD
Post new model development
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS167
ISDP Process Community – Internal Processes To-Be-Defined Post New Model
Process To be Defined Next Steps
Public Review
Arch Review
Community Room Best Practices for Users and Facilitators
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS168
Outline
• GSMP Principles [Team 1]
• Participation
• General Policies• Group Leadership
• Anti-trust Caution, Code of Conduct
• IP Policy
• Teleconferences and Physical Meetings
• Consensus / Decision Making
• Voting Procedures
• Appeals
• Loss of Participation Rights and Reinstatement
• Access to Work in Progress and Confidentiality
• Organization• Working Groups
Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG) Mission-specific Working Groups
• Governance Groups POC GAG BCS
• Process Flow
• Community Interaction
• Infrastructure
Moving forward together, to better serve your business ©2009 GS169
ISDP Process Team 2 - Infrastructure Sub-Team Status
Infrastructure Proposed to be state Next Steps
GS1 Community Room and EPCglobal Subscriber site
Proposal submitted – Integrate EPCglobal Subscriber site and the GS1 Community Room
Post new model platform integration
GSMP CR System and EPC ER System
Proposal submitted - Integrate new process and EPCglobal requirements into the exiting GSMP Change Request System
Post new model platform integration
Audio Visual tools (Live meeting and Premier Global) will remain the same
Use Live Meeting and Premier Global for AV meeting tools
Use Zoomerang as the survey tool
Complete – no change
Internal development tools : GSMP - Visio, Perforce, Rational Rose
GSMP – no change. EPCglobal to use Perforce for standard development repository.
Team 6 Publications is defining the standard document process. Re-revisit with development team post integration for review