Capability (C078):— assigning_resource_properties Date: 2007/06/22 12:22:09
Revision: 1.43
CoverContentsIntro.Overview Info. modelTemplatesCapabilities.Ref. dataIssues

Issue raised against: assigning_resource_properties

GENERAL issues

Open issue Issue: BNN-1 by Bill Nairn (07-06-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: open

Figure 3 - Simplified model for assigning resource properties. The amber box at the bottom of this diagram is named incorrectly. It should read "Cap 078 Assigning_resource_properties" (rather than "Cap 076 Assigning_product_properties").
Comment: ( )

OTHER issues

Closed issue Issue: TJT-1 by Tim Turner (05-11-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

By itself, this capability does not provide any values for the properties identified. These are eft to C079 and C080 (numerical and textual assignments). Therefore, I would suggest that this capability is dependent upon C079 and C080 rather than just being related capabilities.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Done.

Closed issue Issue: TJT-2 by Tim Turner (05-11-19) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

This capability should introduce at least 2 templates. One for assigning numerical properties to a resource and a second for textual ones.
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Done.

Closed issue Issue: Ian1 by Ian Bailey (04-05-12) major_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

I find myself in the curious position of raising a major issue against a capability that I edited. However, this issue should be discussed by the PLCS modellers and I need to raise the issue in some formal way, so here goes....

For required resouorces we sometimes have required properties (see example in this capability of test equipment with a required accuracy). For every other case in PLCS we assign requirements when we want to have required properties - i.e. we create instances of requirement_assignment, requirement, requirement_version, etc. Requirement is a subtype of product because there is a need to configuration control requirements. In the case of required resources however, we cannot do this as the requirement_assignment select does not have required_resource_by_resource_item in it. Hence I have just shown properties being assigned in this capability. However, I am not comfortable with this, as those properties will be requirements and will effectively slip through the configuration control net. It also provides endless possibilities for data inconsistency through the product lifecycle. For example, imagine a system requirements document that defines supportability requirements - one of which is an inspection ramp that can lift a 2 tonne road vehicle. This would be modelled as a system_element (qualified as "required" and e.g. assembled into a system breakdown called "support solution"). However, when we get into the support phase, the required_resource_by_resource_item isntance will be used to duplicate the same information originally defined in the requirements.
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-01-31)
Classification of Resource_property revised.

Closed issue Issue: Ian2 by Ian Bailey (04-05-12) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

It is not possible to assign a person and organization to a resource_property - the entity is missing from person org select.
Comment: (Rob Bodington 04-09-29)
Added as PLCS ballot comment: 10303-1282 IBY-6

Closed issue Issue: THX-1 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

in *The purpose of the *Assigning Resource Properties* capability is to describe .....* should this be the name *Assigning Properties to Resources* instead of id? (similar for other capabilities in this set )
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Fixed for all modules in this series.

Closed issue Issue: THX-2 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

remove either e.g. or etc. from *(e.g. required resources, managed resources, etc.)*
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: THX-3 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Business DEX overview *... also allow properties assigned to activities.* Change *activities* to *resources*
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Fixed.

Closed issue Issue: THX-4 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

*Note that required process/activity properties are not allowed.* This is achieved by creating Requirement instances and assigning them to the activity. * Should this be resources? Or should it be removed? It conflicts with *The acceptable qualifiers are: Required - ....
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Good question. Normally, we would use a requirement instance and assign it. However, required_resource is sort of a requirement in itself. However, by shortcuttting the requirement assignment process we'd end up with requirements being handled in two different ways. Any views ?
Comment: (Mike Ward 2004-01-31)
Classification of Resource_property revised.

Closed issue Issue: THX-5 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

*To assign a property to an activity* should be *resource*. Check all instances of activity to make sure they are intended.
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Oops! There quite a few of those typos. Now fixed.

Closed issue Issue: THX-6 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

*Note that required process/activity properties are not allowed.* This is achieved by creating Requirement instances and assigning them to the activity. * Since this is normative , suggest not using the wording *note that* (similar in other capabilties. (I know I know this is not an ISO standard...).
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
I'm not sure if the ISO rules apply, but I've changed it anyway.

Closed issue Issue: THX-7 by Tom Hendrix (04-05-07) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Add C084 as a related capability
Comment: (Ian Bailey 2004-05-10)
Done

Closed issue Issue: RBN-1 by Rob Bodington (05-11-23) minor_technical issue
Resolution: Accept. Status: closed

Add TEMPLATE: assigning_resource_property
Comment: (Peter Bergström 2006-05-18)
Done.