From edlipson@mailbox.syr.edu Sat Feb 24 12:11:29 1996 Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 12:04:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Edward D. Lipson" To: edlipson@npac.syr.edu Subject: plan issues (fwd) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 1996 10:10:41 -0500 From: Wojtek Furmanski To: edlipson@mailbox.syr.edu, roman@npac.syr.edu Cc: furm@npac.syr.edu, gcf@npac.syr.edu, gene@npac.syr.edu Subject: plan issues Here are some bullets, comments and thoughts to get the plan development process started. We clearly don't want to develop three different plans and then spend a week or two on converging it. Gene offered help with online/interactive hints. So, perhaps we try to establish some overall vocabulary and modular format first, then decide who writes which modules, then write it and circulate for comments/convergence. P. Projects ----------- P.1) NPAC healthcare P.2) school nursing P.3) home care P.4) RL CIV/Telemed P.5) new pilots C. Project Components --------------------- C.1) technology C.2) content C.3) marketing C.4) management C.5) resources R. Responsibilities/Workload ------------------- R.1) staff R.2) students R.3) externals M. Milestones ------------- M.1) current status M.2) plan till and status by May '95 M.3) continuation: perspectives, modes, needs Comments: We need to identify projects and decide who writes what. P is a suggested list of projects. C, R, M are suggested items to be addressed in each project. P.5 includes activities related to HCDS, Omnia, Pitt etc. - these are not well defined projects yet but they consume some fraction of our time and are in fact critical as potential source of new funds. So I suggest to encapsulate these activities as a project itself. P.1 represents overall NPAC healthcare activities. It includes coordination of P.[2-5] and 'more' i.e. reusable assets/core webmed technologies to be developed in A[2-4] and applicable to P.5. I will try to draft P.1 but will need Ed's help with P.5 as he has more interaction with externals and new pilots. From P.1 perspective, P.5 contributes to M.3 so I suggest Ed writes P.5 and we work together on M for P.1 (e.g. Ed writes M.3, I write M.[1-2] for P.1 and we iterate/coordinate). In general, I see a good split of the 'vision thing' between Ed and me to be done so that my projections into the future are based on reusable core technologies, and Ed's projections are based on prospective/promising new sponsors and market opportunities. Roman's technology hints and reality checks for P.1 are clearly needed. We tentatively agreed that Ed writes P.3 and Roman writes P.4. We didn't decide yet who writes P.2. I suggest we postpone the issue who is in charge of P.2 from the NPAC perspective and try to write it collectively. I can write Web and Oracle part of P.2 and the associated resources/needs. Roman needs to handle PC and network issues in the similar way. We all need to iterate on other P.2 components, P.3->P.2 plug-in etc. At some point, we need to address P.2 NPAC lead as well. It could be Roman as P.4 will likely contain a lot of P.2 repainted in military colors. It could be Ed as he is already the lead of this project from the SU perspective. We need some discussion on that. This all is just a suggestion for the plan development process - any other suggestions are clearly welcome. I don't think we want to bother Geoffrey with all iterations but I include this one to get some reality check. I would also appreciate some overall size hints from Gene: given/assuming that we have 5 projects, should it be all like 5 pages total? or 10 pages? or whatever it takes to put all relevant issues in writing? thanks