Thread Subject: Re: Definition of Product and E&IT

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 8:55 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Definition of Product and E&IT"
• Previous message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Definition of Product and E&IT"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I would suggest that definition of product be left as is.


RE the edit to E&IT - t
We still have more work to do on this. the phrase "not the principle
function" is tricky and often mis interpreted. The examples helped to
clarify but with their removal it can lead to multifunction products not
being covered even if IT is a major function of the product because it was
not THE PRINCIPLE function.

Maybe if we change "THE principal" to "A principal" function of the
product.

That would still eliminate all the simple thermostats and hvac but would not
eliminate products that (for example) measured but then also acquired,
stored, processed, manipulated and displayed data as well.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:59 AM
> To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of Product and E&IT
>
> PRODUCT
> Currently the term "Product" is defined as "Electronic and information
> technology." The subcommittee had discussed adding the word "services" to
> "product" in a number of sections (e.g. Application) but it appears with
> the
> definition of "product" pointed to the E&IT defintion that would already
> include the whole of what is covered given E&IT defines that universe. A
> suggestion was made that the term product could be changed if it
> inherently
> communicates something too narrow - perhaps to "system" as that is the
> substitution the subcommittee made in the E&IT defintion (see below) or
> some
> other term. Is the preference to change and if so to what -- or stay with
> product? (You could delete the term altogether, but then all the rules
> would need to use "electronic and information technology", all three
> words,
> in place of "product" throughout all of the rules, which is just more
> lengthy but is an option.)
>
> ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
> The current proposed revision as presented at TEITAC is as follows (new
> language in CAPS and deleted language in [brackets]:
> "Includes information technology and any equipment or interconnected
> system
> or subsystem of equipment that is used in the creation, conversion, or
> duplication of data or information. The term electronic and information
> technology includes, but is not limited to, telecommunications SYSTEMS
> [products] (such as telephones), information kiosks and transaction
> machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment such as
> copiers and fax machines. The term does not include any equipment that
> contains embedded information technology that is used as an integral part
> of
> the product, but IN WHICH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IS NOT THE principal
> function of that product. [of which is not the acquisition, storage,
> manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching,
> interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. For
> example,
> HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as
> thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where
> information technology is integral to its operation, are not information
> technology.]
>
> The recommended revisions in sentences two and three are primarliy
> editorial
> and are designed to align with suggested change in use of "product"
> terminology and to use the term "information technology" to cover the list
> in the third sentence without having to repeat all those words from the IT
> defintion in the E&IT definition. The deletion of the fourth sentence was
> suggested because the "for example" list of embedded IT seemed to cause as
> much confusion as provide helpful guidance. There were no specific
> suggestions for this definition at the plenary meeting but there was some
> general feeling that the issue of embedded IT was still confusing
> especially
> for procurement folks at an application level.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Definition of Product and E&IT"
• Previous message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Definition of Product and E&IT"