To have a substantive strategic plan document that shows where we’re going over the period 7/1/06 – 12/31/07 (18 months), and a 1-3 page handout that shows EXTREMELY SIMPLY a) what e2e is, b) what funds we’re requesting and why, and c) what tangible progress we intend to show for it at the two upcoming AUI Board meetings (end Sept. and end Dec.)?
- The user experience
- Customer Touchpoints (proposal submission and archival research)
- Decision Points/Flexibility - the one sheet description of what e2e is
1: What is the NRAO e2e Operations Division?
1.1 Mission
1.2 Goals & Objectives of e2e org...
With respect to ALMA Development/NAASC
With respect to EVLA
With respect to GBT
With respect to VLA
With respect to VLBA
in other words, how can e2e org best serve the various groups from the NRAO perspective?
1.3 Vision for Telescope Interactions (interactive, service observing)
What I want to do here is get a short paragraph (10-12 sentences) narrating at a very high level how users will interact with the telescopes in ~2012. Do they have the option of preparing their whole observing programs at the proposal stage? Are they required to? Is this done for them, automatically? Once the observing program is prepared, do we run it for them (service observing), or do they interact with the telescope (locally or remotely) to interactively execute the observations? How do we envision scheduling will accommodate these cases? Who's looking at the quick look display, and who is responsible for data quality assurance? How is the original data delivered to the investigator? (they take the tape home, they download it to their machine, it's resident at the data center, etc. - think about data volumes here) After the proprietary period, how do you envision the data being manipulated by archival researchers? Do they reduce their data at the data center? How often would you like to reprocess the archival data?
With respect to ALMA Development/NAASC - input from Glendenning/Hibbard?
With respect to EVLA - input from Butler/McKinnon/Ulvestad?
With respect to GBT - %bLUE%input from Prestage
With respect to VLA - input from Ulvestad
With respect to VLBA - input from Ulvestad
1.4 Organizational Chart
1.5 Roles & Responsibilities
1.6 Key Performance Indicators: must follow obejctives. Accelerated time to delivering benefits to users. Reduced development costs. Reduced operations costs. Reduced TCO. Elimination of NVA effort. Increased involvement by external community.
2: NRAO Operations Environmental Analysis
2.1 Overview of science drivers
What I would like to get here is up to 5 bullet points for each telescope, where the main science opportunities lie and *when*
2.2 Timelines – 1 sheet showing what the main deadlines are for all the projects
2.3 Content of first two calls for proposals for EVLA and ALMA - input from Ulvestad/Hibbard?
What observing modes will be supported, when will the call go out, when are they first intended to run on the telescope? - I think for EVLA this is two modes acc to Frazer's presentation...
2.4 Competitive Analysis
What are other organizations like yours doing/offering their users? We won't exactly *compete* with them but we should know what their intended offerings are as far as service delivery & software automation so we are viewed as progressive and not a laggard in 5 years.
ALMA Development
NAASC
EVLA Development
GBT Operations
VLA Operations
VLBA Operations
Observatory-wide Perspective
2.5 Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) and Risk Analysis for proposals, scheduling, observing, pipelines, archive, integration/overall
ALMA Development - input from Glendenning, Shepherd, and anyone else they delegate
NAASC - input from Hibbard, Brogan?
EVLA Development - input from Butler, Rupen
GBT Operations - got input from Prestage already
VLA Operations - input from Ulvestad
VLBA Operations - input from Ulvestad
Observatory-wide Perspective
3.1 Overview
3.2 Reuse of ALMA Software
What is the entire scope of things that *could* be shared?
ACS - what it is, why evla/gbt are/are not positioned to integrate it right now, what are alternatives, why are other organizations using it?
* how is EVLA going to do unified messaging?
* how is GBT going to do unified messaging? - input from Shelton (Clark, Brandt)
* ask joe if ACS-lite could be used *just* as a binding to an NGAS archive
Proposal submission utility
Phase II proposal construction tools
Scheduling software
Data postprocessing software
Pipeline software/QL data displays
NGAS - what does it give us? What are alternatives?
What’s dependent on ACS and why?
3.3 Potential Initiatives – for each of these describe what, what benefits are provided, costs and metrics
* Transitioning PST management (existing tool) to third party
* Using VLA/VLBA pipeline information to get info about pipeline efficacy
* Populate NRAO archive w/VLA images (*** big winner)
* Core group to manage NRAO archive and weave into NAASC/ALMA operations
* Science capabilities blueprint (as a feed-in to proposals, archive indexing, aligning documentation, etc.)
* Getting external help for Carl on his dbase problems (what does that get us? Can we use it for Socorro?)
* Getting Loshin’s team in to create a “roadmap” of how we can manage multiple federated databases; curation plan according to industry best practices (with NAASC)
* Part 1: Assessment of what's there now
* Part 2: Blueprint for future federated archive in operations
* Redirection of current work
* Focus CASA development on functionality, not user interface redesign (big pit)
3.4 Balanced Scorecard
3.5 Time/Value Matrix
Which initiatives to do immediately, what tangible things will come out of early work by new division?
Policy Decisions
* Common look and feel: proposal submission, archive interface, observation prep, data postprocessing
* note that we don't have to have common look and feel on applications that never touch the visiting observers!
* NRAO risk reduction strategy is to have manual process backups for data-driven processes
* Loosely coupled systems
* Think about operations aspects from the start: design for operations/design for manufacturability
- Last fall's software whitepaper
- Butler analysis of what went on in Edinburgh
- Butler's evla messaging document that he sent me last week
- Ed's descriptions on VLA/AIPS and CASA efforts
- Ed's data analyst requests
- NPV/ROI nucleus worksheets
-- NicoleRadziwill - 01 Jun 2006
Revision r1.1 - 01 Jun 2006 - 15:13 GMT - NicoleRadziwill
Parents: OfficeLocations > NicoleRadziwill
|
Content copyright © 1999-2007 by the contributing authors.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
|
| |