Talk:Analysis of Alternatives

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 June 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

World Wide view

World wide view. This page is distict from "analysis of alternatives" which is a general un-named process. The "Analysis of ALternatives"-proper noun, is a US DOD process. Propose removing "Globalization" note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GESICC (talk • contribs) 17:16, 1 September 2010

Analysis of Alternatives also refers to a process within REACH and thus is not specifc to US DOD. Perhaps a disambiguation page is required? Incoherent boy (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incoherent boy - I think no disambiguation page unless there are meanings where enough material exists for at least three separate pages, and meanwhile see if it can do with subsections off a base shared concept Alternatives and Analysis of, with sections on two major or specific Terms of Art by that name (1) JCIDS element and (2) REACH item. Then if there is a later divisin to separate pages it will be in severable chunks for a disambiguation page to point at AoA (JCIDS) and AoA (REACH), etcetera. Go ahead with making a few paras section for REACH and NeESAP with cites then insert here while putting existing content to a JCIDs section. Markbassett (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no REACH or NeESAP material now, but neither is there a hatnote to non US uses. - Rod57 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related Information section - needs explanation

The section of "Related Information" that has been on here forever does not start with a context explanation of what the bullet list is about or where it is from. I improved a couple of the links there, but does anyone recognize where the list is from ? I'm aware of some of the items but also thinking there could be a Risk Management Plan, or Information Support Plan, etcetera. Markbassett (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the related info moved ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics vs. outdated

Noting a problem here -- the term in article title remains constant, but specific terms of DoD process (like Mission Needs Statement) and the OMB guidance is making this one subject to rot -- the terms of DoD and even more so the OMB budget submission guidance are specific to a particular year. I've updated a couple deadlinks and tweaked a bit, but do not see a way to generally make it less sensitive. When further time goes by it may be possible to show the evolution and talk of the abstraction that covers more instances -- but right now there seems not enough change to do so. Markbassett (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]