COTS COTS in .NET

Encode code128b in .NET COTS COTS
COTS COTS
scan code-128c with .net
Using Barcode Control SDK for .net vs 2010 Control to generate, create, read, scan barcode image in .net vs 2010 applications.
ITEM ITEM B_2 B_2
Code128b barcode library for .net
use .net framework code 128 code set b integrating tomake barcode standards 128 with .net
COTS COTS
Code128 scanner with .net
Using Barcode decoder for visual .net Control to read, scan read, scan image in visual .net applications.
PRODUCT B
Integrate bar code in .net
generate, create bar code none for .net projects
Configuration Item
Barcode barcode library with .net
Using Barcode recognizer for VS .NET Control to read, scan read, scan image in VS .NET applications.
Configuration Configuration Item Item
Control uss code 128 data with c#.net
to get code 128 code set b and code 128 code set b data, size, image with visual c#.net barcode sdk
ITEM B_3 ITEM B_3
Web.net code128 integratingin .net
using barcode encoder for aspx.cs page control to generate, create code 128a image in aspx.cs page applications.
ITEM B_1 ITEM B_1
Control code 128b image on visual basic.net
using .net toreceive uss code 128 for asp.net web,windows application
COTS Item COTS Item
2D Barcode integrated on .net
using visual .net todraw 2d barcode for asp.net web,windows application
ITEM B_2 ITEM B_2
Gs1128 maker on .net
using .net framework touse ean 128 on asp.net web,windows application
COTS Item COTS Item
Embed code 128 for .net
generate, create code 128a none with .net projects
Configuration Configuration Item Item
Compose 2/5 standard on .net
using visual .net toconnect industrial 2 of 5 for asp.net web,windows application
Item B_3 Item B_3
GS1 - 12 drawer in .net
using barcode encoding for .net winforms control to generate, create upca image in .net winforms applications.
PRODUCT A Development or Product Specification
.Net Winforms Crystal gs1 128 writerin vb.net
using .net winforms crystal toaccess ean128 for asp.net web,windows application
PRODUCT B Development Specification
Quick Response Code printer in office excel
generate, create qr code iso/iec18004 none on office excel projects
PRODUCT B_3 Development or Product Specification
Control datamatrix 2d barcode image on visual basic.net
using vs .net toprint data matrix 2d barcode with asp.net web,windows application
Figure 42.4 System Con guration Documentation
Code-128 barcode library with vb
using barcode maker for visual studio .net control to generate, create code 128 code set a image in visual studio .net applications.
ITEM B_3 is designated as a CI for development and, as such, is required to have its own unique ITEM B_3 development speci cation.
Control 3 of 9 barcode data with vb
code 39 data on visual basic
42.4 ASSIGNING OWNERSHIP OF ITEMS AND CIs
PDF-417 2d Barcode printing for java
using java toencode pdf417 with asp.net web,windows application
As the speci cation tree evolves, CI development ACCOUNTABILITY should be assigned to owners such as development teams or Integrated Product Teams (IPTs). Figure 42.5 provides an illustrative example. Note how the system architecture decomposes along product structure lines. This is a key point, especially the operative word product. For programs that establish Integrated Product Teams (IPTs), each IPT focuses on product development and collaborates with interfacing IPTs developing items that interface to their assigned product. For example, IPT 1 collaborates with IPT 2 on mutual interface design issues. Accountability for developing ONE product is assigned to ONE and only one IPT. Depending on the size, complexity, and risk of the multi-level items, an IPT may be assigned accountability for one or more products as illustrated in Figure 42.5. Accountability for developing PRODUCTs A and B, which have a moderate degree of complexity and risk, is assigned to IPT 1. In contrast, accountability for PRODUCT C is assigned to IPT 2 due to its complexity and risk. This brings us to a nal point. Programs often get into trouble because SEs develop the IPT organizational structure rst and then leave the IPTs to identify the architectural con guration with limited, if any, oversight by the SEIT. In this example, PRODUCTs A and B, by virtue of accountability by IPT 1 would be bundled together, regardless of the lack of physical interfaces and be ideniti ed as a PRODUCT or SUBSYSTEM. Then, the IPT will attempt to develop a development speci cation for the conglomeration. In many cases PRODUCTs A and B are unrelated, thereby indicating NO interfaces. Yet, the IPT will be required to verify both PRODUCTs together as a black box. Avoid and correct these system con guration identi cation decisions. Often these decisions are made by local heroes with
Control upca size in visual basic
to make upc a and gtin - 12 data, size, image with vb.net barcode sdk
42
System Con guration Identi cation
Configuration Item Hierarchy
PRODUCT A PRODUCT A
Configuration Configuration Item Item
SYSTEM SYSTEM
Configuration Item Configuration Item
PRODUCT B PRODUCT B
Configuration Item Configuration Item
PRODUCT C PRODUCT C
ITEM ITEM B_1 B_1 IPT Responsibility & Accountability IPT #1 Lead CI A Lead IPT #1 ITEM B_1 Lead ITEM B_2 Lead CI B_3 Lead IPT #2 Lead IPT #2 ITEM C_1 Lead ITEM C_2 Team Lead
ITEM ITEM B_2 B_2
Configuration Configuration Item Item
ITEM B_3 ITEM B_3
ITEM ITEM C_1 C_1
ITEM ITEM C_2 C_2
IPT #1 Accountability
IPT #2 Accountability
Figure 42.5 CI Assigned Responsibility & Accountability
an ounce of knowledge about system architecture development and IPT implementation yet wield authority and create programmatic situations that severely impact contract performance.
42.5 RECOGNIZING TYPES OF ARCHITECTURAL ITEM BOUNDARIES
The Industrial Revolution introduced new concepts for standardizing and reproducing modular and interchangeable components via predictable methods in order to leverage the bene ts of economies of scale. Our discussions on SYSTEM, PRODUCT, SUBSYSTEM, ASSEMBLY, SUBASSEMBLY, and PART levels of abstraction expound on these themes. The concept of modularity can easily lead to the SE mindset that all items and CIs are constructed as modular plug and play boxes. The System of Systems (SOS) approach further reinforces the mindset of box CIs integrated into a higher level system. However, there are systems whereby INTEGRATION occurs ACROSS the traditional box boundaries. In general, systems often consist of two classes of PRODUCTs/SUBSYSTEMs: 1. Mission speci c PRODUCTs/SUBSYSTEMS. 2. Infrastructure PRODUCTs/SUBSYSTEMS that transcend the mission-speci c SUBSYSTEM boundaries. Figure 42.6 illustrates this type of architecture. Consider the following example:
EXAMPLE 42.2
Of ce building systems, as MISSION SYSTEMs, consist of well-de ned architectural box boundaries. Hierarchically, we could refer to the individual oors of of ce buildings as SUBSYSTEM level CIs. However, what about the plumbing and electrical, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system CIs that