# Presentation: 536901

## Applications Implementation Working Group

- Second Meeting @ SSC
- March 31-April 1, 2004

## Goals--Continuing

- Have everyone integrated
- Centers/Projects
- Program Executives
- External Entities (grants etc. – as applicable)
- Have everyone well communicated
- Information is compiled and readily available (Program plans, budgetary data, E V&V Reports, etc.)
- Schedule
- Program Strengths are regularly surfaced and “marketed”
- Program weaknesses are highlighted and corrective actions initiated timely
- Common basis are established and ‘we all’ know: what are the defining requirements, constraints, implementing processes, and deliverables

## AGENDA

**	****	****Day 1:   Morning session: 8:30 am – 12:00pm**
- Welcome							Peterson
- HQ Inputs/Update						Frederick
- Goals of this Meeting						Habib et. al.
- Open Discussion - State of the Applications Union				All
- Update from last meeting
- Actions/Issues/Concerns
- Budget/Environment
- Latest on Program/Project Plans
- Upcoming meetings/Conferences
- Applications Showcase
- Other topics
***	******	******	******Lunch  12:00 pm – 1:00 pm***
**	****	****Afternoon session 1:00pm – 4:30 pm**
- Upcoming Solicitations and Expectations					Frederick
- Evaluation, V&V and Benchmarking Template,				Zanoni/Stover
- And Reports/Deliverables (Issue # 2)
- ESE Knowledgebase						Policelli
- Plan for Master Schedule (issue # 4)					Policelli/Habib
- AIWG Website						Hood
- IBPD Metric Update (Issue # 2)					Peterson
- 		**Day 2:  Morning Session 8:00 am – 12:00 pm**
- GIO Update							Bambacus
- PART Discussion and Improvement Plan					Stover
- Working session on Establishing a Comprehensive                                                                                                       Process/Requirements for Conducting Reviews of                                                                                                                       each Application						Habib/Stover
***	******	******	******Lunch 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm***
**	****	****Afternoon Session:  1:00pm – 4:00 pm**
- REASON Overview						Peterson et. al.
- U. of Missouri and Arizona Activities Overview (PP&A)				Kaupp/Hutchinson
- Benchmarking Tool Overview						Tralli
- Wrap up, Actions Items and Adjourn					Habib

**AGENDA**

## 1.  Center roles (and capabilities)
	- Program vs. project
	- Expertise and interfaces (who?)
		- system engineering (SSC as a resource)
		- technical interface
	- Collaboration vs. competition
	- Better communications cross-center, to & from HQ, and otherwise
2.  Defining processes to be used
	- Reports, other deliverables
		- Outcomes, products should be recognizable, understandable, flexible
	- Need a catalog system, a central retrieval repository
- Common processes for consistency, but flexible
- Define minimum required documents
- This discussion (about processes) includes implementation, not just documentation
- Concern expressed about imposing inappropriate standards (e.g. 7120.5b)
- Where do program planning & analysis activities now go?
3.  IBPD Metrics
- Need process for including inputs from community in formulating metrics
- Identify owner for each metric
4.  Need Master Schedule for program level
- Project schedules feed in 
- Define owner, process
5.  Implications of 85% competed requirement and full cost accounting
- What is definition of “competed?”  The implications are critically dependent on this.
- Meeting metrics and other programs needs requires us to have continuity and dependability in the civil service cadre.
- How will we allocate FTEs in the future for Level III planning & administration activities?
6.  Data transition issues
- Fidelity, validation issues; definitions and agreements with end users
- Potential legal issues
- Will respect rights of scientists, and their role in validation
- Need flexibility if required by users, and limits of validation are well defined and agreed upon.
7.  Process for pursuing & implementing potential applications not fitting neatly into one of the twelve (but relevant to them)
- e.g. weather – is it crosscutting?
8.  What is our frequency of meetings and telecons?

- 	- Program vs. project
- 	- Expertise and interfaces (who?)
- 		- system engineering (SSC as a resource)
- 		- technical interface
- 	- Collaboration vs. competition
- 	- Better communications cross-center, to & from HQ, and otherwise
- 2.  Defining processes to be used
- 	- Reports, other deliverables
- 		- Outcomes, products should be recognizable, understandable, flexible
- 	- Need a catalog system, a central retrieval repository
- - Common processes for consistency, but flexible
- - Define minimum required documents
- - This discussion (about processes) includes implementation, not just documentation
- - Concern expressed about imposing inappropriate standards (e.g. 7120.5b)
- - Where do program planning & analysis activities now go?
- 3.  IBPD Metrics
- - Need process for including inputs from community in formulating metrics
- - Identify owner for each metric
- 4.  Need Master Schedule for program level
- - Project schedules feed in
- - Define owner, process
- 5.  Implications of 85% competed requirement and full cost accounting
- - What is definition of “competed?”  The implications are critically dependent on this.
- - Meeting metrics and other programs needs requires us to have continuity and dependability in the civil service cadre.
- - How will we allocate FTEs in the future for Level III planning & administration activities?
- 6.  Data transition issues
- - Fidelity, validation issues; definitions and agreements with end users
- - Potential legal issues
- - Will respect rights of scientists, and their role in validation
- - Need flexibility if required by users, and limits of validation are well defined and agreed upon.
- 7.  Process for pursuing & implementing potential applications not fitting neatly into one of the twelve (but relevant to them)
- - e.g. weather – is it crosscutting?
- 8.  What is our frequency of meetings and telecons?

- ISSUES from February 3-4, 2004 Meeting

## ACTIONS from February 3-4, 2004 Meeting

- 5. HQ Guidance for Applications acquisition/ use of aircraft data – Steve Ambrose 6. Review "working list" of NASA contacts for G.I.O. - Myra Bambacus
- 7. Define what level of science product validation is required for NASA products to be used in Applications Projects- Shahid Habib/ Marty Frederick8. Provide copy or link to latest IBPD to working group - Craig Peterson
- 9. Provide IBPD responsibilities matrix to working group - Fritz Policelli10. Provide Issues summary to working group - Tim Miller
- 11. Define/ clarify the phrase "types of predictions" as used in the IBPD metrics - AIWG12.Begin drafting FY06 metrics (and communicate schedule/ due date)-AIWG13.Set up next working group telecon - Shahid Habib
- 14,Host next working group work shop - SSC

## Program Documentation Pedigree

- Center Implementation Plan

- Center Implementation Plan

- MSFC

- Center Implementation Plan

- LaRC

- Center Implementation Plan

- GSFC

- Other
- Project
- Plan

- Other
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

- Cross Cut
- Solutions
- Project Plan

- NASA
- Strategic
- Plan

- ESE
- Strategic
- Plan

- Earth Science
- Technology
- Plan

- Earth Science
- Applications
- Plan

- Earth Science
- Education
- Plan

- Earth Science
- Outreach
- Plan

- Cross Cut
- Solutions
- Project Plan

- Agriculture
- Project
- Plan

- Energy
- Project
- Plan

- Air quality
- Project
- Plan

- Aviation
- Project
- Plan

- Health
- Project
- Plan

**Agency**

**Enterprise**

**Division**

**Centers**

- Earth Science
- Research
- Plan

- Other
- Project
- Plan

- Data Distribution
- and Archive
- Plan

- OMB

*Strategic*

*Programmatic*

*Project*

- JPL

**IBPD**

**PART**

**Program Documentation Pedigree**

## Relationship “Donut”

- SSC

- MSFC

- JPL

- ARC

- GSFC

- LaRC

*Grants*

*Earmarks*

*External *
*Contracts*

## Program Alignment and Communication Flow

- PH

- Agriculture

- Energy

- Coastal

- Disaster

- Aviation

- AQ

- HLS

- Ecological

- Invasive

- Carbon

- H2O

***SSC***

***SSC***

***?***

***SSC***

***SSC***

***?***

***?***

***SSC***

***?***

***?***

***SSC***

***?***

***GSFC***

***?***

***LARC***

***?***

***?***

***LaRC***

***LaRC***

***?***

***GSFC***

***ARC***

***GSFC***

***GSFC***

***?***

***GSFC***

- GIO

***Program Exec/HQ Level***

***Deputy Program Exec Level***

***Project Level***

***Sub-Project Level***

- Strong Coupling

## Initial Systems Engineering Process

**Define **
**Requirements**** & ****Specifications**

**DSS **
**Selection**

**Investigate **
**Alternative **
**NASA Inputs**

**Design**
**& **
**Implement**

**Benchmark**
**(Baseline**
**&**
**Assess **
**Performance)**

**Enhanced**
**DSS**

**Refine**

**Refine**

**Refine**

**Refine**

**Evaluation**

**V&V**

**Benchmarking**

**Verify**
**&**
**Validate**

**Refine**

- Use of *Systems Engineering* principles leads to scalable, systemic, and sustainable solutions and processes, which in turn contribute to the success of the mission, goals, and objectives of each National Application.
*Evaluation* phase involves understanding the requirements for and technical feasibility of Earth science and remote sensing tools and methods for addressing DSS needs.

*Verification and Validation* (*V&V*) phase includes measuring the performance characteristics of data, information, technologies, and/or methods, and assessing the ability of these tools to meet the requirements of the DSS.
- In the *Benchmarking** *phase, the adoption of NASA inputs within an operational DSS and the resulting impacts and outcomes are documented.

## DSS -- Status

## Review Contents

- Program Plans – Guidance and Requirements
- Project Plans --  Commitment
- Team Composition
- Budget and Schedule
- Partnership Agreements
- DSS Selection and Status
- Task/Project Requirements
- NASA data/products used (missions, models, etc.)
- Technical Approach in solving the problem(s)
- Specific products produced
- Deliverables (IBPD and Projects)
- Risks
- Outreach (Publications, conferences, etc.)
- Benefits

## Review Process

- Cyclic (every 6 months) for each Applications
- Comprehensive
- Partners should be involved
- Evaluate progress to date
- Identify Tall Poles
- Recommendations for next steps