Work Breakdown Structure

LMU/COICP Example

Work Breakdown Structure Example

Build the LMU/COICP planning baseline around concrete scenarios that flow into Architecture and later stages.

ES-103 Work Packages Execution Structure

Example AreaLMU/COICP

Current PageWork Breakdown Structure

FocusLMU work decomposition

UseDefine planned work and evidence outputs

Repository Areadocs/examples/lmu-coicp/planning/

← Previous Planning Overview

Current Work Breakdown Structure

Next → Milestones

Example purpose

This artifact is part of the ES-103 — Planning package for the LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform. It keeps planning tied to realistic LMU business problems rather than generic categories.

Project

LMU Campus Operations and Incident Coordination Platform

Document control

Field	Value
Artifact owner	COICP Product Engineer
Primary reviewers	COICP Product Owner, Architecture Review Board chair, IT security reviewer, AI reviewer, Compliance reviewer, Campus Safety liaison
Status	Accepted for ES-103 planning baseline
Last updated	2026-07-06
Related Engineering Stage	ES-103 — Planning
Project workspace target	docs/project-workspace/planning/work_breakdown_structure.md

Planning context

Field	Value
Source requirements package	ES-102 — Requirements and Constraints
Planning baseline produced	LMU-COICP-PLAN-001
Architecture baseline expected next	LMU-COICP-ARCH-001
Design baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-DES-001
Implementation baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-IMPL-001
Integrated baseline expected later	LMU-COICP-INT-001
Release candidate expected later	LMU-COICP-RC-001
Downstream release posture	Internal engineering review only
Planned downstream review environment	LMU-COICP Internal Engineering Review Environment
Planned downstream dataset	Spring Semester Synthetic Incident Dataset
Planned downstream synthetic records	421
Planned downstream reviewer accounts	24
Planned downstream review window	March 18–22, 2026
AI Incident Summary	Deferred / disabled
Operational pilot	Not approved

Work packages

ID	Work Package	Scenario Driver	Description	Owner	Dependencies	Evidence Produced	Estimate	Status
WP-001	Scenario set baseline	all COICP-SYN scenarios	Lock the six synthetic scenario threads for Architecture.	COICP Product Owner	Requirements baseline	scenario decision record	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-002	Intake workflow planning	COICP-SYN-001	Define create record, required fields, and creation evidence.	COICP Product Engineer	WP-001	create workflow input	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-003	Handoff/evidence planning	COICP-SYN-118	Define owner change, status change, handoff note, and evidence needs.	Architecture Review Board chair / Product Engineer	WP-001, WP-002	evidence model input	Half day	Planned
WP-004	Scenario-scoped role model	COICP-SYN-204	Define Residence Life, Facilities, Campus Operations, ARB, Compliance, AI, and IT reviewer access.	IT security reviewer	WP-001	role matrix input	Half day	Planned
WP-005	Status and closure planning	COICP-SYN-219	Define status progression, invalid transition concern, and closure rationale need.	COICP Product Engineer	WP-003	status/closure planning note	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-006	Emergency-boundary planning	COICP-SYN-322	Define block/redirect behavior and wording owner for emergency-related entries.	Campus Safety liaison / Product Owner	WP-001	boundary guidance input	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-007	Optional IT handoff extension	COICP-SYN-407	Decide whether Wi-Fi disruption ownership is first-baseline or extension only.	COICP Product Owner / IT security reviewer	WP-004	extension decision note	30–60 minutes	Planned
WP-008	AI disablement decision	all scenarios	Confirm AI Incident Summary is deferred/disabled through RC-001.	AI reviewer / Product Owner	WP-001	AI deferment note	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-009	Synthetic-data and retention review	all scenarios	Confirm synthetic-only boundary and no hard-coded retention rule.	Compliance reviewer	WP-001, WP-003	compliance planning note	Half day	Planned
WP-010	Reviewability planning	COICP-SYN-118	Identify future Architecture Review Board review package needs without overbuilding export.	ARB chair / Product Engineer	WP-003	review package input	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-011	Architecture handoff package	all scenarios	Convert planning decisions into ES-104 architecture inputs.	Architecture Review Board chair	WP-001–WP-010	planning readiness summary	1–2 hours	Planned
WP-012	Internal-review operations assumptions	all scenarios	Define March 18–22 review window, 24 reviewers, support path, and availability expectations.	IT security reviewer / Product Owner	WP-001	operations planning input	1–2 hours	Planned

Deferred work

• operational pilot planning;
• production rollout;
• real campus incident integration;
• AI Incident Summary implementation;
• automated trend detection;
• full review/export implementation;
• public-facing incident portal;
• enterprise ITSM replacement;
• emergency dispatch or notification integration.

Continue to Milestones

Move to the next planning artifact while preserving the same LMU scenario-driven flow.

Open Milestones →