1 / 8

NISAC Review of the LNO ARRA Operational Plan

NISAC Review of the LNO ARRA Operational Plan. Wade Sheldon & Will Pockman NISAC Co-Chairs. Draft 1: Areas of Concern. 1. Approach to NIS development appears uni-directional and insular Lines of communication limited, prescribed Long development cycles with limited feedback

rosalyn-riddle
Download Presentation

NISAC Review of the LNO ARRA Operational Plan

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NISAC Review of the LNOARRA Operational Plan Wade Sheldon & Will PockmanNISAC Co-Chairs

  2. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 1. Approach to NIS development appears uni-directional and insular • Lines of communication limited, prescribed • Long development cycles with limited feedback • Need much broader, bidirectional communication explicitly included in plan • Need opportunities for outside collaboration • Draft 2 response: • More interaction planned than articulated – added more explicit communication tasks • Development blocks composed of smaller steps where feedback will be sought • Collaboration welcome, but must be timely (on track)

  3. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 2.NIS development appears isolated from LTER science activities • NIS not sufficiently user or science driven moving fwd • No planned NIS interaction with LTER SC working gps • Apparent lack of flexibility to respond to evolving needs • Need to make SC, IMC groups aware of services, activities • Draft 2 response: • Added explicit plans for CIO to interact with groups • More flexibility planned than described

  4. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 3. The importance of standardization to facilitate network-level CI was not emphasized • Diversity of LTER site data/systems/practices major barrier to synthesis • No explicit support for standardization efforts • Needs site-based funding, but must include “hooks” in Core CI activities and PASTA • Draft 2 response: • Added steps to include support for controlled vocabularies, other efforts • Emphasized role of PASTA in standardization

  5. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 4. Utility of Core CI, NIS for supporting LTER site operations was under-emphasized • OP primarily focused outward • Need to focus on service to sites to ensure buy-in, reward for participation • Improved network databases, use cases for NIS to support site-based research needed • Draft 2 response: • Included more activities to support sites

  6. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 5. Level of technical support and service to sites insufficient • Only 0.3 FTE for helping sites support NIS protocols • Site visits planned, but tech support should take precedence • Help overcoming small barriers can lead to big payoff • Draft 2 response: • Additional, externally-funded FTEs also available • Mixed messages from sites, EB on direct support • Planning more group training, education to augment 1:1 support

  7. Draft 1: Areas of Concern 6. Long software development timelines increase risk that products won’t meet needs • Recent experience in LTER raises concerns • Limited patience for protracted use case development • Best feedback received when prototypes provided • Need to identify major shifts/drifts early enough to have flexibility to make changes (not brittle) • Alternative approaches should be considered where possible (Agile, RAD, simulations) • Draft 2 response: • Many shorter duration milestones implicit in plan • Really need use cases to drive development • RUP approach is flexible enough to accommodate

  8. Draft 2 Discussion • Many points addressed, clarified in Draft 2 • OP largely on track, but serious process questions remain (some out of OP scope) • Need corresponding site funding to succeed • Community dynamics within LTER critical (need to move from sites + LNO to network) – may need experts • “Tiger Team” model useful – NISAC/IM-Exec could be tasked with identifying collaborators, testers • Formal communication plan should be considered • In-reach to LTER committees, groups • Education/training tailored to classes of users • Briefing materials needed to engage more site PIs

More Related