|In order to ensure that emergency callers reach the proper public safety answering point (PSAP)(?) regardless of the technology used to originate or answer the call NENA established the Future Path Plan and the Future Path Plan Compliance Evaluation Process.
Compliance means that the concept, as presented to the review committee, sufficiently meets the evaluation criteria to garner a passing grade.
Compliance does not constitute NENAs endorsement of any product, nor does it guarantee the product will work as advertised or ever be a viable product or service. It means that the concept, as presented, meets FPP criteria.
- The ONLY two official contact points for anyone desiring to submit a contribution to be considered for Future Path Plan compliance are the NENA Technical Issues Director or the NENA Technical Committee Chair/Liaison.
- A packet is sent to the contributor including FPP questions and a link to NENA documents. These contributions should only be submitted as single implementations. Variations on a single theme should be submitted as separate proposals.
- The completed packet is sent to the Technical Issues Director and the Technical Committee Chair/Liaison. They will then assemble an AdHoc team (either the technical lead team or other applicable members) to review the contribution and provide a summary of the pertinent items of the proposal for further discussion by the NENA Future Path Plan Compliance review team. When possible, a technical lead team member from the appropriate committee(s) should be included on the AdHoc review team.
- The AdHoc review team will use the New Contribution Evaluation Summary document to report their findings related to the contribution/proposal.
- Once completed, the contributor will confirm that the information contained in the New Contribution Evaluation Summary accurately reflects their contribution.
- To accomplish this step the contributor will be invited to input their final comments directly into the New Contribution Evaluation Summary file (using WORDs Track Changes feature), and when ready, that version of the file will be returned to the AdHoc team leader and subsequently submitted to the Technical Committee Lead Team for evaluation.
- At this point the AdHoc Teams work is complete unless the Lead Team requires their assistance during the actual grading process.
- The Technical Committee Lead Team establishes a date to review the contribution. The contributor and the AdHoc review team leader are advised to be available during the review date (either by phone or in person at the discretion of the Technical Committee Lead Team).
- The Technical Committee Lead Team reviews the contribution using the Criteria Grading Sheet For The Future Path Plan ultimately assigning a compliant, conditionally compliant or non-compliant. Any Technical Committee Lead Team member having an interest in the contribution that could be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest shall recuse themselves from the evaluation process.
- The Technical Committee Lead Team will use the MASTER template to prepare the FPP Compliance Report NENA 01-004. The Technical Committee Lead Teams report will be specific to the contribution under review. The report will be sent to the contributor, shared with the NENA Board, and retained on file within NENA HQ.
- Contributions will be treated in one of these methods:
- A contribution that receives a compliant rating will be posted on the NENA web site.
- A contribution that receives a conditionally compliant rating will be posted on the NENA web site for a one year time frame and will receive a compliant if the conditional elements are satisfied.
Otherwise, the contribution will be returned to the contributor, with instructions that it only be submitted for reconsideration after the conditionally compliant items have been satisfied.
- A contribution that receives a non-compliant rating will be returned to the contributor and no further action will be taken.
The focus of the evaluation process is centered on things that are deemed to be related to compliance with the NENA Future Path Plan criteria, as they apply to this concept.
This process is NOT an endorsement or analysis of any particular product, or specific implementation of this concept and is only a paper review of the concept.
- Does it maintain or improve on; reliability and service characteristics inherent in present E9-1-1 system design as governed by NENAs technical standards for E9-1-1 service, and/or in the Future Path Plan concepts descriptions?
- Does it maintain or improve on; service parity for 9-1-1 calls?
- Does it maintain or improve on; a system design that avoids unnecessary complexity while achieving the needs in a cost efficient manner (simplicity, maintainability)?
- Does it maintain or improve on; the probabilities for call and data delivery?
- Does it provide; documented procedures, practices, and processes to ensure adequate implementation, operation, and ongoing maintenance for E9-1-1 systems?