1 / 16

AQAP 2070 Development Andy Oldershaw AQAP 2070 Action Team Chairman

AQAP 2070 Development Andy Oldershaw AQAP 2070 Action Team Chairman. This session is intended to brief you on:. Why AQAP 2070 is being revised. The development plan The concept The strategy The schedule.

brody-wyatt
Download Presentation

AQAP 2070 Development Andy Oldershaw AQAP 2070 Action Team Chairman

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AQAP 2070 Development Andy Oldershaw AQAP 2070 Action Team Chairman 1 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  2. This session is intended to brief you on: • Why AQAP 2070 is being revised • The development plan • The concept • The strategy • The schedule • How the revision relates to concerns raised during last year’s Host Nation Conference Your views are encouraged throughout 2 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  3. Why AQAP 2070 is being revised Last years Host nation conference, provided a substantial input to an AQAP 2070 review. The review resulted in an action team being formed to assess how the feedback could be used to improve AQAP 2070. The Action Team met in December 2006 and drafted a proposal to the NATO Working Group For Quality (WG/2) 3 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  4. WG/2 endorsed the Concept and Development Plan Ref:20070114-WG2 2070 Submission-V1-U A 3 Stage Process: • Comment Disposition (Complete) • Structure Development (Complete) • Drafting (In progress) The deliverable, to WG/2 Draft 1, October 2007 4 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  5. What did you tell us The process is not applied consistently across all participating nations Process Discipline is lacking/process needs revision More flexibility is required Communication can be improved especially relating to risk and product information AQAP 2070 is guidance opposed to must/shall 5 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  6. Acknowledgements / Acceptance / Completion Notifications need Established and measurable timeframes Satisfaction feedback will be encouraged New Policy 5 days for acknowledgement & 20 days for acceptance Process Discipline Is Lacking/Process Needs Revision There will be a measurement and analysis section. New more flexible forms GQA can Start without Delegator go ahead 6 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  7. The process is not working Risk information is not known or available Consider no risk classification Risks not identified Consider no risk requirement in certain situations Still tasking GQA process now starts with new Policy, Guidance on risk as a delegation decision gate Risk introduced early in the publication explaining how risk is the key to GQA. Process Discipline Is Lacking/Process Needs Revision Assume Legal requirements are based on risk No risk knowledge is a Risk New Risk Form Revised annex to amplify policy 7 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  8. Form too Cumbersome The RGQA Form will be split into 3 Request Acceptance Reporting New Risk Form to travel with the other forms More Flexibility The form will include more open text fields, allowing more specific communication 8 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  9. Tailor GQA to the situation Limited GQA (The Fast Track) Facility Wide GQA More Flexibility Standard GQA 9 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  10. Process communication is inconsistent at best New communications policy up front Communications Participant feedback will be facilitated New forms with open text fields to provide more flexibility. There will be a measurement and analysis section. 10 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  11. Consider minimum surveillance requirements Delegators do not always provide enough information Policy setting out the essentials for the process to work. Guidance Opposed to Must/Shall Guidance where it is needed Policy will set out what minimum service that will be provided 11 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  12. What will be different? Risk Assessment Up front Policy, Guidance & Tools MUST/SHOULD/COULD Feedback through the process will be facilitated Who does what & when will be clearer A more linear stage by stage process. 12 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  13. What will be the same? The basic process or underlying principles You told us that the principles are correct, but not applied 13 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  14. What will it look like? Policy Guidance 14 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  15. Risk The scenario Nations will not accept the new version The Cause Too many changes, difficult to translate The severity The revision will be cancelled or restarted (Wasted resource) The likelihood Medium 15 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

  16. 16 NATO/PFP UNCLASSIFIED

More Related