Talk:Integrated master plan

Major malfunction here
(belatedly adding section header)

Major Malfunction - incorrectly conflating terms and limited POV The original posting tried to describe what an IMP was, as seen in university and province planning settings as well as US federal government. An IMP is not including time frames and dependencies among tasks or even detailed tasks, which distinguishes the product from a schedule. This writeup has conflated that with Integrated Master Schedule, drawing solely from a single brochure of US DoD usage of the term but alternate branches of DoD and entities outside of DoD use the term differently. While DoD makes a linkage to the two separate items, there is no current DoD contractual specification (Data Item Description) for an IMP -- the article has shifted to a limited sub-section of DoD that advocated joint phrasing of the term, which is not currently supported in wider DoD contractual mechanisms and fails to include the common usage of the term Integrated Master Plan for http://www.mwhglobal.com/mwh-projects/qatar-integrated-master-plan http://www.usc.edu/dept/ise/assets/005/55422.doc http://www.ucop.edu/acadinit/mastplan/UCMasterPlanPerspective.pdf http://www.riversideca.gov/pworks/pdf/masterplan-wastewater/Riverside_Wastewater_IMP_DEIR.pdf http://www.csu.org/residential/water/Pages/wastewaterplan.aspx etcetera etcetera Also: The DoD in 2005 shifted IMS to DID http://www.everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-MGMT/DI-MGMT-81650_12009/ and in 2012 shifted to http://www.everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-MGMT/DI-MGMT-81861_42561/. The 1996 DID for IMS cited http://www.everyspec.com/DATA-ITEM-DESC-DIDs/DI-MISC/DI-MISC-81183A_11978/ does mention IMP as if a separate product, but I have not found period references nor period DID of the 1980s usages. Markbassett (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Will add civic versions of IMP, but the conflation from merging IMS and the narrowing of POV to one flavor of DOD and limited views on subtopics would take separate actions or major undo to get around. Markbassett (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The previous references to IMP/IMS being used in colleges and state/local governments is incorrect. The contractural use of IMP/IMS is guided by the FAR/DFAR (Federal Acquisition Requlations). The IMP is a contractual deliverbale on all procurements greater than $20M. The IMS is associated with the IMP. While the pronciples of IMP/IMS can be applied to general project management domains, I know of no contractual requirements for IMP/IMS outside of the Federal Government procurement process (FAR/DFAR). Galleman (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

> Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC) No, the term "integrated master plan" *is* used by colleges and governments, just google for it and see. They obviously vary from the procedures of pentagon approval, but people outside of DoD create plans, create master plans above them, and then integrate them and call it an integrated master plan.

I am curious about the mention of DFAR and deliverable IMP, the only deliverable DID applied to contract I saw for IMP was discontinued, so is there something you see used for IMP as a deliverable separately or is the contract using the IMS DID and saying somehow that it should include IMP? I have seen a convention of having almost a Table Of Contents for MSProject, of major points shown at the top, and they link to the major event wherever in a detailed schedul below it. That kind of summary duplicate at the top is one means of incorporating a IMP view...is that what you mean ?

>Markbassett (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC).

I am not aware that plans in the form of an IMP are used outside of the defense contracting environment. Properly, any network scheduling effort should be preceded by a planning exercise. In the olden days, the plan was built in the form of an arrow diagram. As precedence diagramming took hold, planning pretty much disappeared along with the i-j nodes of the arrow diagramming method. The IMP seems to be an attempt to reinstitute the planning process as a predecessor to scheduling, albeit in a different way.

The IMS is just a another word for the network schedule such as would be constructed useing tools like Primavera, Microsoft Project, Open Plan, etc. The network schedule is widely used beyond the realm of Federal Government procurements. It is very prominent in construction projects, IT and many other applications. The specifications and practices associated with network schedules vary from one industry to another, but certain principles of scheduling are shared by all. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is an example of an agency that enforces rigor for both planning and scheduling but does not specify the use of the Integrated Master Plan.

The IMP and IMS do go together, but they are not a single product. Generally, I prefer to distinguish between them and shun the use of IMP/IMS. That combination suggests singularity, not plurality.

Tnanoc (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflated entries
Still seeking a way to properly cover the broader meaning for "Integrated Master Plan", and separate "Integrated Master Schedule" I am inserting (again) mention about Civic Planning usage items outside and different from DoD combined IMP/IMS. Seems it just got pulled, without considering other views or WP:DR i.e. limiting the article to only the "IMP/IMS" concept of IMS flowing from IMP KE/SA/EC misses the more general usage of combined schedule such as IMS from inputs of WBS with CDRLs and CIs (but not evaluation criteria) and the civic planning or public works form of Integrated Master Plan being one that covers diverse concerns such as environment and budget profile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markbassett (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

"Integrated Master Schedule" curently is a redirect to "Integrated Master Plan", there is no way to write to that subject about IMS meanings unrelated to IMP without either misfiling it under "Integrated Master Plan" or eliminating the redirect.... I do see DoD 'Integrated Master Schedule' meaning a collection of linked items for the overall effort that may use Work Breakdown Structure, Contract Data Requirements List, and Configuration Items as the inputs without the IMP Events/Accomplishment/Criteria heirarchy. Markbassett (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Clean-ups
Recommend changing the title to read, "Integrated Master Plan within the Defense Acquisition System" and creating a disambiguation page for a more general term integrated master plan outside the DoD.

Recommend clarification that the IMP is a Government document - thus not usually required to delivered by defense contractors, (unless they are a Government support contractor for the program).

Recommend clarification that the IMP is required by the DoD-5000 series of documents (directives, instructions, manuals, regulations), regarding the "Defense Acquisition System" and "Major Programs" or "Major Systems" or "Major Weapon Systems".

Recommend clarification that an IMS might be considered part of an EVMS iaw ANSI/EIA-748, or an IPMR iaw DoD data item DI-MGMT-81861, and that some other DIDs in article have also been cancelled.

Recommend clarification that an IMS (not IMP) is required on DoD contracts by paragraph (b)(2) of subsection 252.234-7002 of the DFARS.

Recommend clarification that the clauses of subsections 252.242-7001 and -7002 of the DFARS have been removed since 2008; (73 FR 21848, Apr. 23, 2008 refers).

Recommend adding a "Tools" section, listing the following:
 * Microsoft Project
 * Oracle Primavera
 * Deltek Open Plan

Recommend reference also to the "Defense Acquisition Guidebook" (DAG). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)