**1^st^ USER GROUP MEETING ON SEVERE WEATHER TECHNOLOGY FOR NWS WARNING
DECISION MAKING - 12-14 July 2005**

POST-WORKSHOP EVALUTION RESULTS

1.  Please list the positive aspects of this meeting.

-   Bringing together the types of people that participated.

-   Good wrap-up discussion. Things seem to finally get better focused
    in the last hour or so.

-   A good way to discuss current or future technology with the field.
    Field offices do not have good insight. Many of the topics discussed
    this week were heard for the first time.

-   Great overview of future potential tools/software we will be
    evaluating for future use. Good blend of informative talks and group
    discussion. VTC presentations worked well. Great 1^st^ user group
    meeting! Thanks for everything!

-   The open, honest sharing of ideas was fantastic. Bringing developers
    and field forecasters together always seems to be productive and
    enlightening (for both sides). Seeing the emerging
    technologies/tools was exciting.

-   Fairly nice mix of "[briefings]{.underline}" from developers and
    field [stories]{.underline}, and [discussion]{.underline} time. Nice
    mix of [developers]{.underline} and [users]{.underline}. Good having
    the comments from the field survey. Huge kudos to Mike and Greg for
    all the hard work to run this workshop! Thank you!

-   Hopefully, well-defined goals will be an outcome and resources to
    accomplish them will be a subsequent outcome (note: this is an
    optimistic positive outcome). Great to have a nice sampling of
    operational people (forecasters, SOOs, etc) in attendance.

-   It was a good chance to get the different organizations together to
    discuss severe weather operations.

-   The discussions were very productive. Discussions gave everyone a
    chance to be involved.

-   As a non-forecaster, it was interesting to hear how the WFOs
    operate. The discussion sessions seemed to address the needs of the
    WFOs.

-   Critically important issues were raised/introduced and discussed
    amongst folks [with varied backgrounds]{.underline} (ops folks,
    developers, managers, trainers). Important advances in decision
    support systems were presented. VTC presentations went well. Great
    presentations by Dave Andra, Greg Stumpf, informative and
    thought-provoking. Mike and Greg did a wonderful job keeping the
    meeting in focus.

-   Brought together developers, managers, and field interested to
    address a critical NWS mission objective -- protection of life and
    property. Pre-workshop survey was very good.

-   New technology, all groups involved were great. This is a wonderful
    idea. Please keep forecasters involved. I was really excited about
    meeting the different branches.

-   Feedback from the forecasters in the field (their needs).

-   Good info on new science, data, technology coming. Presentations of
    new ideas and on local problems and issues at WFOs.

-   Diversity of attendees.

-   Showing new promising technology. Discussion groups. Field WFO
    perspectives and problems.

-   Very good variety of speakers and topics. Fell like I have a very
    good idea of the issues, concerns, technologies, etc. "Stories from
    the Field" a good idea.

-   [Well]{.underline} organized, knowledgeable attendees and
    presenters, [lots]{.underline} covered! Varied perspectives of
    attendees.

-   Presence of research, forecast, training, systems development, and
    NWSHQ staff -- it is vitally important that key components of NWS
    structure/hierarchy get together to identify/address issues.

2.  Please list the negative aspects of this meeting.

    -   Wrap up a bit disorganized.

    -   Rushed at time. Wide range of backgrounds/experience sometimes
        made communications inefficient.

    -   "Stories from the Field" identified issues. Some of these issues
        were not discussed; problems were not addressed, nor solved.

    -   Few, if any, in decision making and budget roles at this meeting
        to push any initiatives forward. Chairs were not comfortable.
        Needed more time to discuss issues in breakout groups and should
        have let all groups address all [six]{.underline} issues. More
        hands-on demos of future software.

    -   Getting a glimpse into the time scales that are
        "normal"/expected to get research and technology into the field
        was disheartening. I would like to see things move along much
        faster. Would have liked to see more participation and
        attendance from NWSHQ folks.

    -   Power people were not present. Don Wernly and Greg Mandt said
        'hi', and then left for the rest of the meeting. Looking around
        the room, it seemed like we could've had the meeting in Norman.
        Better momentum towards the end, but think of how beneficial it
        would've been if Ward Seguin was in for all of the talks.

    -   Need to be more forward-looking.

    -   Some time should be given to briefly discuss PPBES, OSIP, and
        SREC.

    -   More break periods. Too many presentations -- overwhelming.

    -   The final discussion session seemed to be a bit unfocused and
        rushed towards the end.

    -   Short lead time for the field folks to pull together their
        presentations (even though they were very informative and
        well-presented). Too bad more field folks were unable to
        attend...lots of true experts in warning decision making weren't
        here (Przybylinski, George Phillips).

    -   Needed more discussion time and breaks. Need to have more/better
        NWSHQ senior management representation. AWIPS is now like AFOS
        -- we need to move forward!

    -   No coffee. Need a better explanation for entire process to get
        ideas approved.

    -   None really. Although Beltway traffic was a pain. 

    -   Who is running this meeting? Lack of focus on how to do this --
        get ideas to execution by agency -- get into OSIP and PPBES. Did
        we really have the right people here? Not enough time for
        brainstorming/consensus of ideas.

    -   Everyone had similar ideas (e.g., more base data). Need to have
        end-users present (e.g., emergency managers, private companies).
        Morning session on last day floundered a bit and could have been
        better organized.

    -   Unaware of NOAA internal prioritization processes such as PPBES
        and OSIP.

    -   Need more WFO forecasters involved to get better sample of
        concerns and anecdotes. They should drive the discussion more.
        Also, more disciplines needed (e.g., hydro warning needs, people
        who study user response).

    -   Not enough time (especially for discussions). Needed more
        preparation on the part of attendees (spend time thinking and
        fleshing out ideas [before]{.underline} discussion with others).

    -   Would be better if local NWSHQ folks could be present for more
        meetings like this. Although a few were here for parts of the
        meeting (e.g., Wernly, Glahn, Sequin), they can't necessarily
        obtain proper "flavor" of various contributors by abbreviated
        appearances.

3.  Please suggest any improvements or changes for future meetings.

    -   Provide CD of presentations to participants.  Learn NOAA
        structure and processes (e.g. PPBES, OSIP, etc).

    -   Meet Jan-Feb. More NWSHQ program managers and leaders need to be
        present.

    -   n/c

    -   A few more breaks. More decision makers in attendance. More time
        for breakout groups and let all groups discuss all issues.
        Suggest website or some other method to have info on all
        programs under development so the field can be informed on items
        they need to prioritize.

    -   Have workshops more often (at least yearly) and invite a "new"
        crop of forecasters to obtain new ideas.

    -   Wireless mouse for advancing slides by the presenter. More of an
        introduction of participants and their [roles]{.underline} in
        the process. There are so many groups and agencies involved, and
        I wasn't sure who were who and what they do. It might be good to
        have a Western Region and Alaska Region SOO attend (Ed: Doug
        Green is a WR SOO). Maybe more of an organized "Action Items"
        assembly in the wrap up session. I do think each meeting should
        have a planning committee for each meeting. Perhaps have a
        standing committee on this?

    -   Need to be more forward-looking, focus more on up and coming
        things, not things already here.

    -   n/c

    -   n/c

    -   I would like to see the meeting planned for two full days or
        three full days and not go into a half day. I hope that most/all
        of the presentations will be available online or via email
        attachments.

    -   Schedule and plan meeting with more lead time. Hopefully NOAA
        and regional budgets can be expanded/adjusted to support
        participants' attendance. Probably not good to expect local
        offices to come up with travel funds this late in the Fiscal
        Year. Hold workshop once a year as needs/ideas/technological
        evolution continue to occur at an accelerated rate.

    -   Integrate others' studies/rankings (e.g., Mike Istok has a
        ranked list of priorities for projects). Have an overview of
        OSIP process and how to define requirements.

    -   Keep WFO forecasters involved in planning process. Explain how
        WFOs can help with suggestions, outreach, etc.

    -   Better microphones.

    -   Program committee needs to look hard at who is to be at
        meetings. Good to have field people -- but they needs to
        understand requirements process as well. Less briefings and more
        discussion. Perhaps a smaller group representing
        regions/OCCWS/OST/PPBES programs and goals.

    -   Final day: moderator summarizes discussions, puts them up,
        proposes broad themes (several opinions), etc. Attendees should
        discuss and change. This didn't happen.

    -   Do it well before May (PPBES PBA cycle start). Integrate with
        existing LW+F/ST+I plans/discussions. Have a
        coordinating/planning group.

    -   Longer breakout/discussion sections with 2+ WFO representatives
        per group. Specific "action items" [all]{.underline} attendees
        can work on to help keep the momentum moving after the workshop.

    -   Allow for longer breakout discussions. Suggest more strongly for
        attendees to think about the discussion topics before the
        discussion.

    -   Provide a more-focused discussion/action environment by: 1) more
        tightly defining inputs provided by forecasters, "tool
        developers", and requirements policy officials; 2) more
        instruction and information about NWS prioritization and
        requirements processes (OSIP and SREC). Unless forecasters play
        a greater role in the decision making process that determines
        what "tools" are placed into operations (and how that process
        operates), they will remain as frustrated outsiders. It is
        important to find ways for forecasters to become part of the
        "overall systems", not just recipients of others' decisions.

4.  This workshop should be held

> **15 Once a year**
>
> 4 Once per two years
>
> 1 Twice a year
>
> 1 Not sure

-   (Not Sure) Not sure of optimal frequency. This will depend on travel
    budget in NWS and need to advice participants about requirements
    changes and speed of new applied research developments.

5.  Preferred time of the year for the workshop (number times each
    circled)

> 9 Jan
>
> **10 Feb**
>
> 5 Mar
>
> 3 Apr
>
> 3 May
>
> 1 Jun
>
> 3 Jul
>
> 2 Aug
>
> 4 Sep
>
> 5 Oct
>
> 2 Nov
>
> Dec
>
> 1 No preference

-   (Sep-Oct-Nov) Can reflect on the recent severe weather season.

-   (Jan-Feb) for PPBES cycle

6.  Workshop location preference

> 4 Same location every time
>
> **15 Rotate between 3 or 4 locations**
>
> 1 No preference

-   (Rotate) If upper management would attend, I'd vote for Silver
    Spring, but that appears doubtful. Good to see Ward Seguin and Greg
    Mandt come back in for the last day.

7.  Workshop location (number times each circled)

> **17 Silver Spring**
>
> **14 Norman**
>
> **15\` Boulder**
>
> 6 Kansas City
>
> 5 Salt Lake City

-   (Silver Spring) Best chance of having decision makers attend.

-   Any of these locations works for me...the key is to continue to
    meeting and focus on issues of utmost importance to successful
    public warning operations ( detection, dissemination, response )

-   (Silver Spring) Get more bang for the buck -- program leaders are
    here

-   (Silver Spring, Norman, Boulder) These are where the primary
    development organizations are located (MDL/NWSH, NSSL/WDTB, and
    FSL/NCAR). It makes sense to hold meetings in these locations.
    Rotating among locations in east, central, and west also facilitates
    participation by forecasters in different regions of the country.