\begin{slide}[toc=SILAP,method=file]{SILAP: why yet another risk model? }
{\small
\twocolumn[lineheight=5.5cm,lineprop={linestyle=dotted,linewidth=1pt}]{
\begin{itemize}
\item
 \underline{S}oftware \underline{I}ntegrity \underline{L}evel 
\underline{A}ssessment \underline{P}rocess
\item 16 criteria (scored 1,2,3,4,5) 
\begin{itemize}
\item Criteria used to calculate  $error potential$ (risk) and 
$consequence$ (severity).
\item Which, in turn,
select IV\&V tasks 
from the IV\&V work breakdown structure
adapted from 
IEEE Std 1012 (V\&V standard)
\end{itemize}
\item
In practice, takes two weeks (or more) full-time work to do a SILAP assessment.
\bi
\item
Review the documents
\item
Offer a score for the criteria
\item
Write a detailed rationale for the score
\ei
\end{itemize}
}{
\begin{itemize}
\item
Understood locally (very important):
\begin{itemize}
\item
Previous risk models where developed elsewhere and, to a degree were ``black box'';
i.e. inexplicable, not defensible
\item
SILAP, on the other hand, was built locally at Fairmont IV\&V after $extensive$ meetings between NASA
civil servants.
\end{itemize}
\item
Civil servants report that SILAP has simplified and clarified their discussions
with projects regarding what IV\&V tasks are/are not to be performed.
\end{itemize}
} 
~\\~\\
SILAP makes IV\&V business knowledge
explicit, publicly accessible.
\bi
\item This record lets outsiders (like me) review  their work practices.
\item How many other organizations can say they have done the same?
\ei

}
\end{slide}
\begin{slide}[method=file]{SILAP structure}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\begin{center}
{\tiny
\begin{tabular}{r@{~=~}l r@{~=}l}\hline
   variable & meaning & variable & meaning\\\hline
    AM3&Artifact Maturity
&	FR3&Use of Formal Reviews\\

	AS2&Asset Safety
&	HS2&Human Safety\\

	CL3&CMM Level
&	PF2&Performance\\

	CO1&Consequence
&	PR2&Process\\

	CX3&Complexity
&	RA3&Re-use Approach\\

	DI3&Degree of Innovation
&	RM3&Use of Risk Management System\\

	DO3&Development Organization
&	SC2&Software Characteristic\\

	DT3&Use of Defect Tracking System
&	SS3&Size of System\\

	DV2&Development
&	UC3&Use of CM\\

	EP1&Error Potential
&	US3&Use of Standards\\

	EX3&Experience
\end{tabular} }
\end{center}
\begin{code}
function CO1(   tmp) { // Consequence
    tmp=0.35*value("AS2") + 0.65 *value("PF2"); return round((value("HS2") > tmp) ? value("HS2") : tmp;) }
\end{code}
\begin{code}
function EP1()  { // Error Potential
    return  round(0.579*DV2() + 0.249*PR2()  + 0.172*SC2()) }
\end{code}
\begin{code}
function SC2() { // Software Characteristic
    return  0.547*value("CX3") + 0.351*value("DI3")    + 0.102*value("SS3") }
 
function DV2()  { // Development
    return  0.828*value("EX3") + 0.172*value("DO3") }

function PR2()  { // Performance
    return 0.226*value("RA3") + 0.242*value("AM3") + formality() }

function formality() { 
    return 0.0955*value("US3") + 0.0962*value("UC3")  + 0.0764*value("CL3")  
     +0.1119*value("FR3") + 0.0873*value("DT3") + 0.0647*value("RM3") } 
\end{code}
\end{slide} 

%\begin{slide}{Questions about SILAP}
%\bi
%\item Q1: is SILAP worthy of study?
%\bi
%\item A1a: Yes; it is how the Fairmont IV\&V civil servants select IV\&V activities
%\item A1b: Heck yes: SILAP represents what NASA civil servants understand about IV\&V
%\ei
%\item Q2: does it have the right variables?
%\bi
%\item ?
%\ei
%\item Q3: does it have the right connections between variables?
%\item Q4: do the connections have the right weights?
%\bi
%\item
%0.0647,
%0.0764,
%0.0873,
%0.0955,
%0.0962,
%0.102,
%0.1119,
%0.172,
%0.172,
%0.226,
%0.242,
%0.249,
%0.35,
%0.351,
%0.547,
%0.579,
%0.65,
%0.828
%\ei
%\ei
%
%Our  answer to Q3 and Q4 will be {\color{red}``unimportant, for now; need to fix something else first''}.
%
%~\\
%
%The rest of this talk: what is the {\color{red} something else}.
%
%\end{slide}
