Transcript NISAC Op Plan Review

Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
NISAC Review of the LNO
ARRA Operational Plan
Wade Sheldon & Will Pockman
NISAC Co-Chairs
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
1. Approach to NIS development appears unidirectional 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)
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
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
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
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
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
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
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
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
Draft 1: Areas of Concern
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
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
Draft 2 Discussion
Network
Information
System
Advisory
Committee
 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