Guidance to IRIS Standing Committees - Fall 2011 • 20132018 Proposal Development – An important step in defining IRIS future direc@ons through 2018 and beyond • IRIS Board and Program Standing CommiFees – Community governance – Guidance for direc@on and implementa@on • Program Plan and Budgets for NSFprovided resources • Based on current and future science needs • IRIS is your Consor@um and Facility – Where should it be headed? – What changes should be made in facility focus and direc@on? – How do we set priori@es? – How can we best prepare for the decade ahead? 1
Transcript
Guidance to IRIS Standing Committees - Fall 2011!
• 2013-‐2018 Proposal Development – An important step in defining IRIS future direc@ons through 2018 and
beyond
• IRIS Board and Program Standing CommiFees – Community governance – Guidance for direc@on and implementa@on
• Program Plan and Budgets for NSF-‐provided resources
• Based on current and future science needs
• IRIS is your Consor@um and Facility – Where should it be headed? – What changes should be made in facility focus and direc@on?
– How do we set priori@es? – How can we best prepare for the decade ahead?
1
1985-1991 The “Rainbow” Proposal Formation and Development
Standards, Instrument design and acquisition
1991-1996 “Understanding Earth’s Dynamics and Structure”
Implementation
2001-2006 “Exploring the Earth at High Resolution”
Stability
1996-2001 “Science Facility for Studying the Dynamics of the Solid Earth”
Growth
2006-2011 “Cornerstone Facilities for Seismology and Earth Sciences”
Core Program O&M
2011-2013 “Facilitating New Discoveries in Seismology and Exploring the Earth” Transition, consolidation and exploration
Seismological Grand Challenges
2003-2008 “EarthScope MREFC
USArray – PBO – SAFOD Construction
2013-2018 “GESF”???
2008-2013 “EarthScope O&M”
Transportable Array in the lower 48
2018-2023 ????????
? ?
???
2
with links to OBS, OPP, ATM, EarthCube etc
Standing CommiFee Guidance -‐ 2009 “A @me for change”
Reinvigorate community par@cipa@on in governance and “oversight” of Program ac@vi@es -‐ review, refine broaden scope of program consistent with current mission, vision and goals.
Having established leadership and competency in core opera@onal ac@vi@es, encourage shiV in emphasis consistent with current mission, vision and goals :
• GSN in addi@on to -‐ “operate a 128 sta@on network”
-‐ facilitate access to high quality data from permanent networks
• PASSCAL in addi@on to -‐ “acquire portable instruments” -‐ provide services to support portable observa@ons
• DMS In addi@on to -‐ “operate a data archive” -‐ provide services that support the collec@on and u@liza@on of data
For all programs -‐ evolve beyond a “passive” funding approach – rather than implement programs based on I&F core funding – consider ac@vi@es and funding sources consistent with current mission, vision and goals.
Board Requests to SC’s -‐ Fall 2011
• Report and presenta@on by SC Chairs at Nov 8 BoD mee@ng, with SC input on: – Science drivers
• What are the key scien@fic targets over the next decade for the IRIS community you represent?
– Facility support • What should remain the same -‐ what should change? • What are the primary budgetary elements and constraints? • Evolu@on – from the 2011-‐2013 “springboard” to the future beyond 2018
– where should the emphasis be: – 2011 – 2013 2013-‐2018 2018 and beyond
– Stresses • Are there significant obstacles to success? • Are the efficiencies that should be implemented? • Should we consider curtailing past ac@vi@es to make room for the future?
– Opportuni@es • for development during the next 27 months • for compelling new ini@a@ves • for external funding
– Sugges@ons for “Aura” and “Metrics”
4
Differences from previous IRIS 5-year proposals!• Structural (see NSF guidance letter)!
– Merged management of core and USArray/EarthScope!– Build on new IRIS Management structure!– Proposal content and structure proscribed by NSF!
* no one-pagers * WBS * special review criteria!
– Total budget proscribed by NSF!– Review process to include “independent cost review”!
• Need enhanced transparency in budget and task presentation!
– EarthScope structure and content coordinated with UNAVCO/PBO!– Single NSF Program Officer (G. Anderson) for combined activities! !
• Strategic!– Build resources and link to science plans that have decadal timeframe!– Maintain a EarthScope and Core identity while optimizing management coordination!– Prepare for 2018 “re-competition” !– Links to International Development Seismology and EarthCube!– Other linked opportunities for diversified science and funding!
5
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
• Science themes – Board of Directors - representing IRIS Community!– What are the key scientific themes for 2013-2018 that IRIS proposes to
facilitate? !– How does this link to anticipated activities beyond 2018?!– What new facility developments are essential to support these scientific
activities? !– How should these themes be organized in the proposal? !
• Management!– How should coordination between core and EarthScope be presented?!– How should the role of the Consortium be highlighted? !
• Proposal Writing Team!– To be clarified by the BoD at the Nov meeting!– Should include: !
• Editors – BoD Chair, President and leaders of the following teams!• Science team !• Facility team - Tasking, WBS!• Budget team - Budget allocations, definitions and structure!• Integration team – Core and EarthScope – Collaboration with UNAVCO!
! ! !!
7
FOUR GRAND CHALLENGES!Planning Committee recommendations:!
!• How do temperature, composition, and internal boundaries
of the Earth control mantle and core dynamics? !
• What is the relationship between stress, strain, and earthquakes; and how do the lithosphere and plate boundary systems evolve over time? !
• How does structure of the crust relate to the distribution of fresh water, the location of energy resources, and the level of shaking in earthquakes? !
• What can we learn of atmospheric, oceanic, cryospheric, and volcanic processes by studying the solid Earth? !
Do these themes capture and link to your SCʼs science drivers? !
8
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
• "Aura" – All – BoD, SCʼs, Staff!– Opportunities outside of the proposal document itself to increase visibility of
IRIS and the science it supports !• in lieu of one-pagers!!
– As the proposal review approaches, what can we do to ensure that there is a broad appreciation of IRIS and its accomplishments? !• Articles in disciplinary and popular science journals !• IRIS involvement in cross-disciplinary activities !
– EarthCube!
• Organizational leadership in national and international meetings!• Spotlight on seismology at highly visible public venues!
– AGU, AAAS, TED?, GSA!
• Refresh IRIS website!
9
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
• "Metrics" – All – BoD, SCʼs and Staff!– What measures can we quantify that point to the influence of IRIS on
seismological research and community activities? !– Beyond bytes in the archive and instruments in the pool? !– How many scientists and organizations do we serve? !– What is the impact on education and the HR pipeline? !– How do we quantify international impact? !– Why is the consortium important? !– Program-specific metrics!
• How do you want your successes communicated? !
10
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
• USArray/PBO/Alaska - USArray Advisory Committee!– Coordination with UNAVCO is essential. USArray/PBO interactions are the
place to start. !– IRIS and UNAVCO Boards have charged USAAC and PBOAC with a specific
request to initiate discussions. !– Initial response requested for Nov Board meeting!
– USAAC and Program Managers - with community input – are starting to define TA implementation in Alaska!
11
High-level proposal structure and responsibilities!
WBS - Work Breakdown Structure ! Woolley and Program Managers – with SC and CoCom direction! WBS as an organizing tool for development and presenta5on of tasking and budgets
– Essen5al for clarity in presenta5on and budget understanding by IRIS, NSF and reviewers – Not a representa5on of IRIS organiza5onal structure
!– Total budgets for 2031-2018 proscribed by NSF as total of flat funding
for Core and USArray !
– Program Managers have initiated development of WBS structure !– Rob Woolley has consolidated these and developed a requirements-
driven outline - which includes key structuralelements and review criteria!
– Review of drafts and refinement - at and following SC meetings!
12
Work Breakdown Structure – Level 2
DraC Product-‐Based WBS – “Level 2”
1.0 “Global EarthScope Seismic Facility – GESF” 1.1 Community Ac@vi@es
1.2 Interna@onal Development Seismology
1.3 Portable or PI Facili@es
1.4 GSN Program
1.5 Data Services
1.6 EPO Program
1.7 Polar
1.8 Transportable Array
1.9 Magnetotellurics
13
Product Based WBS 1.0 Global EarthScope Seismic Facility
GESF 1.1 Community Activities
1.1.1 IRIS Workshop 1.1.2 Seismic
Instrumentation Technology Workshop
1.1.3 Annual Report/At a Glance
1.1.4 Newsletters 1.2 International Development
Seismology 1.2.1 Management 1.2.2 Joint Capacity
Building 1.2.3 Guide to
Sustainable Networks
1.2.4 Seeding Activity 1.3 Portable or PI Facilities
1.3.1 Management 1.3.2 Governance 1.3.3 Instrumentation 1.3.4 PI Support 1.3.5 Data
Work Breakdown Structure – Level 3 Proposal requirement -‐ at this level
14
Budget Breakdown Structure
T ime Repor5ng Sys tem
WBS: Core Product Based
Plan and Track Finances and Resources By Program
Plan and Track Products and Discrete Work Elements
By Products
Track and Plan FTE Resources by func<on and Program
The goal is to create a budget, product based WBS, and @me repor@ng system that tracks all the necessary items at a reasonable and sensible level.
WBS -‐ Portable Instrumenta5on example – PASSCAL, FA and Polar
15
Budget Breakdown Structure
Management Salary/Fringe Travel Office Expenses
Governance
Travel Misc. Expenses
E&O TBD
Core PASSCAL Services
Instrumenta@on/Equipment Services Field/PI Services Data Services
New Ini5a5ves
TBD Unfunded Mandates
TBD
This represents the basic services not only in the PASSCAL Program but Polar, FA etc. The Core Products Based WBS will focus on this.
Products: 1. Measurement Systems 2. Field /PI Support 3. Ac@onable Data
Core IRIS Func5ons
New Ventures, Future Business, Good Will, and General Support of IRIS Primary Mission
Budget Items Notes
16
WBS
: Core Prod
uct B
ased
Sensing Systems Tes@ng and Evalua@on / Calibra@on Hardware Engineering SoVware Engineering Repair Prepara@on Procurement
Recording Systems Tes@ng and Evalua@on Hardware Engineering SoVware Engineering Repair Prepara@on Procurement
Power Systems Tes@ng and Evalua@on Hardware Engineering Repair Prepara@on Procurement
Hardware/Cables Tes@ng and Evalua@on Hardware Engineering Repair Prepara@on Procurement
Logis5cs Scheduling Packing Shipping/Customs Inventory Control
1. Measurement Systems 3. Ac5onable Data
Field Support TBD
Data QC TBD
Data Prepara5on and Archiving TBD
SoCware Engineering SoVware Solu@ons Tes@ng and Evalua@on Procurement Installa@on
Training SoVware and Data Instruc@on Logis@cs and Field Instruc@on
2. PI/Field Support
Training Instrumenta@on Instruc@on SoVware and Data Instruc@on Logis@cs and Field Instruc@on
Field Support TBD
17
Timeline!
• Oct Fall standing commiFees • Nov IRIS and UNAVCO Fall Board Mee@ngs • Feedback from standing commiFees, USACC and PBOAC • Dec Members mee@ng at AGU (revised format focusing on proposal) • Jan Winter Board Mee@ng • Feb Revised and expanded proposal outline with ini@al wri@ng • Mar Spring standing commiFee mee@ngs with feedback on proposal development • Apr Spring Board Mee@ng • May DraV of Proposal • Jun IRIS Workshop • July Proposal revision • Aug Proposal Submission
18
Board Requests to SC’s -‐ Fall 2011
• Report and presenta@on by SC Chairs at Nov 8 BoD mee@ng, with SC input on: – Science drivers
• What are the key scien@fic targets over the next decade for the IRIS community you represent?
– Facility support • What should remain the same -‐ what should change? • What are the primary budgetary elements and constraints? • Evolu@on – from the 2011-‐2013 “springboard” to the future beyond 2018
– where should the emphasis be: – 2011 – 2013 2013-‐2018 2018 and beyond
– Stresses • Are there significant obstacles to success? • Are the efficiencies that should be implemented? • Should we consider curtailing past ac@vi@es to make room for the future?
– Opportuni@es • for development during the next 27 months • for compelling new ini@a@ves • for external funding
