Difference between revisions of "Software Technology Readiness"
(Created page with "__NOTOC__ The purpose of this cluster is ... {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" |- valign="to...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
__NOTOC__ | __NOTOC__ | ||
| − | + | Motivation | |
| + | Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions are largely considered to be unusable for software projects and for integration of HW and SW. | ||
| + | The other motivation is driving improvements in way we put things together to create an operational capability. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Goals/Outputs | ||
| + | |||
| + | To produce formal documentation (guidance, formal recommendations or another artifact artifact/model) which clearly addresses the lack of information related to software technology readiness. | ||
| + | The recent Operational Readiness Guidance (ORL) guidance [0] produced by the ESIP Disasters Lifecycle Cluster is a good example of how this kind of thing doesn’t need to be overly complex as long as the intent is clearly communicated and suitably purposed… which current guidance is not! | ||
| + | |||
| + | [0] https://www.esipfed.org/orl | ||
{| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" | {| width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="zborder-top:1px solid #aaaaaa; border-collapse: collapse;" | ||
|- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" | |- valign="top" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" | ||
| Line 19: | Line 28: | ||
=== Get Involved=== | === Get Involved=== | ||
| − | * '''Email List:''' [http://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/ | + | * '''Email List:''' [http://lists.esipfed.org/mailman/listinfo/esip-software_tech_readiness esip-software_tech_readiness] |
* Next meeting: | * Next meeting: | ||
** Insert telecon info here... | ** Insert telecon info here... | ||
* '''Contact Chair:''' | * '''Contact Chair:''' | ||
| − | ** | + | ** Lewis McGibbney, Chair |
| + | ** Kel Markert, Co-Chair | ||
|bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"| | |bgcolor="pink" style="border: 1px solid gray;padding-left:0.5em;padding-right:0.5em;" width="50%"| | ||
| + | |||
===Resources=== | ===Resources=== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:06, February 5, 2020
Motivation
Current Technology Readiness Level (TRL) definitions are largely considered to be unusable for software projects and for integration of HW and SW. The other motivation is driving improvements in way we put things together to create an operational capability.
Goals/Outputs
To produce formal documentation (guidance, formal recommendations or another artifact artifact/model) which clearly addresses the lack of information related to software technology readiness. The recent Operational Readiness Guidance (ORL) guidance [0] produced by the ESIP Disasters Lifecycle Cluster is a good example of how this kind of thing doesn’t need to be overly complex as long as the intent is clearly communicated and suitably purposed… which current guidance is not!
[0] https://www.esipfed.org/orl
News
|
Activities |
Get Involved
|
Resources |
