New CM and numbering scheme

Thank you for getting back with me so quickly!!

This just really threw me for a loop, "In other words, will you have major CIs that are really a collection of lower level CIs?"

I feel like a complete dunce right now because I am so confused with all of these new terms.

I believe that I am in big trouble :( I will ask my program manager and see what he says.

MBH11,

Most of us have been in your situation so first things first. Take a deep breath. Next here is a practical example of what you could do.

Ok lets say your working on the F22 Fighter Program. Ok you have this plane with all these parts. So the F22 consists of 1,000,000 parts. Those one million parts are a F22 Raptor. Ok lets look at one example the pilots seat, it is made up of 5 part or CI's, but the completed seat is 1 part or CI. So here is what you could do:

F22R.PS.01.PD100. This translates into the Padding for the 1st version of the Pilot Seat for the F22 Raptor.

F22R.PS.01.EJ101 This translates to the Ejection Mechanism, on the first version of the Pilot Seat for the F22 Raptor.

Now if that Ejector Part is made up of two parts a pull cord and a blaster then it would be this:

F22R.PS.01.EJ101.PC100 and F22R.PS.01.EJ101.BL100 respectively.

Now the complexity depends on the number of parts, and every part has a number in what you are working on, whether its physical parts, Documents, or whatever.

Does this make sense?

Regards,

Joe

MBH11,
Asking questions is the important thing to do. Find out what is important to your customer. That and the make up of the CIs should lead you to a numbering scheme.

As you are working for the Air Force, I propose that you read MIL-HDBK-61. You will find all the help you need in there.

It sounds almost as if you are in charge of maintaining a library of finished S/W rather than S/W development files.

In any event, here's a suggestion that sort of goes along with what Mr. Townsend said. It is sort of like looking at the Table of Contents in a large technical document where you see a heading listed as "4.2.1.3 Coil Lead," where Section 4 is all about the Vehicle Engine, 4.2 addresses the Ignition System, 4.2.1 deals with the Distributor, 4.2.1.1 is specific to the Rotor, 4.2.1.2 to the Cap, 4.2.1.3 to Coil Lead.

In those terms, the "S/W application" has a title ("Car Maintenance").
It has a Table of Contents (TOC-somewhat analogous to a main or trunk program).
The application runs down the TOC to the first trigger (general subject category or module)
It runs in that section to find the right sub-module, and so forth.
Each section has sub-Sections. (smaller modules)
And so forth.

So, your S/W has an identity, as does each section and subsection.

So, if you use an ID system such as the one Mr. Townsend suggests, you can identify each piece and it's relationship within the overall application.

To take this a step further, you now have the problem of identifying the most current SET of pieces. This is where the real confusion can start and where your effort gets really unwieldy.

You application Version 1.0 consists of three modules, each of which is also Version 1.0, and module C has three sub-modules, all 1.0. Somewhere you need to record that App 1.0 consists of the other pieces. Further, you need to record that module C consists of Submodule-(1) Version 1.0, Submodule-(2) Version 1.0, and Submodule-(3) Version 1.0. Here's why.

Submodule-(3) Version 1.0 is modified. It becomes Version 1.1 and installed with the SET. But, by virtue of that change, Module-C is now Version 1.1, and the appliation is now Version 1.1. In other words, the new SET, App 1.1 consists of Module-A v1.0, Module-B v1.0, and Module-C v1.1 (with its submodule-(1) v1.0, submodule-(2) v1.0, and submodule-(3) v1.0).

Hopefully that helps explain some of the reasoning behind the madness. Someone mentioned Mil-hdbk-61A. I don't have it handy, but I seem to recall that creating and applying identifiers is in Section 5. Mil-HDBK-61A is, I believe, still available online.
Good Luck