1 JPSS Engineering Review Board (ERB) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Product Configuration Change Request (CCR) Evaluation 9 May 2014.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
County of Fairfax, Virginia Department of Transportation Proposed Transportation Funding Policy Changes Fairfax County Department of Transportation March.
Advertisements

Digital inclusion – a CS perspective Alex Poulovassilis ESRC TLRP-TEL Inclusion and Impact conference, June 2010.
Portfolio Management, according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-16 Supplemental Guidance, is the coordination of Federal geospatial.
Software Quality Assurance Plan
Teacher Evaluation and Pay for Performance Michigan Education Association Spring 2011.
Copyright 2010, The World Bank Group. All Rights Reserved. Statistical Project Monitoring Section B 1.
TITLE OF PROJECT PROPOSAL NUMBER Principal Investigator PI’s Organization ESTCP Selection Meeting DATE.
1 Requirements and the Software Lifecycle The traditional software process models Waterfall model Spiral model The iterative approach Chapter 3.
Project management Topic 3 Directing a project. Overview of processes Authorise Initiation Authorisation for Initiation Stage Authorise the Project Contract.
Pittsburgh, PA Software Engineering Institute Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Senior Review Evaluations (1 of 5) Proposals due: 6 March 2015 Panel evaluations: Week of 22 April 2015 Performance factors to be evaluated will include.
Purpose of the Standards
Configuration Management
Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (SNPP) Data Access NOAA Satellite Conference April 8-12, 2013 Kevin Berberich NESDIS/OSD NDE Project Photographs.
Safeguarding Animal Health 1 Proposed BSE Comprehensive Rule: A New Approach to BSE Rulemaking Dr. Christopher Robinson Assistant Director, NCIE BSE Comprehensive.
State of Kansas Statewide Financial Management System Pre-Implementation Project Steering Committee Meeting January 11, 2008.
This chapter is extracted from Sommerville’s slides. Text book chapter
1 Validated Stage 1 Science Maturity Review for {JPSS Algorithm} Presented by Date.
Kerry Grant, Wael Ibrahim, Paula Smit, JPSS CGS Raytheon Intelligence, Information, and Services, Aurora, CO Kurt Brueske, JPSS CGS Raytheon Intelligence,
What If I Must Go Beyond a Preliminary Assessment? (the example of a USAID EA under Reg. 216) [DATE][SPEAKERS NAMES]
Functional Model Workstream 1: Functional Element Development.
S/W Project Management
Introduction to Software Quality Assurance (SQA)
PTCS Service Provider Review 0 Background RTF assumed responsibility for maintaining PTCS specifications in March 2003  Developed PTCS Service Provider.
THE FOUR STEP SECTION 106 PROCESS: AN INTRODUCTION TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION All reproduction rights reserved.
1 Our Expertise and Commitment – Driving your Success An Introduction to Transformation Offering November 18, 2013 Offices in Boston, New York and Northern.
Atlanta Public Schools Project Management Framework Proposed to the Atlanta Board of Education to Complete AdvancED/SACS “Required Actions” January 24,
What is an Inventory Program for? Dr. Emilio Moceo Ph.D Director of Studies Meet international obligations and expectations Inform international, national,
Carol L. Sohn Senior Nuclear Safety Advisor, Office of Science, SC-33 1 May 5, 2011 Review of Science Sites Hazard Categorization.
NIST Special Publication Revision 1
State of Maine NASACT Presentation “Using the Business Case to Guide a Transformation Procurement” 1 Using the Business Case to Guide a Transformation.
SSSC 02/18/2010 P. Marcum Science Utilization Policies SOFIA SCIENCE UTILIZATION POLICIES Pamela M. Marcum SOFIA Project Scientist SSSC Feb 19, 2010.
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER ORBITAL SCIENCES CORPORATION NASA AMES RESEARCH CENTER SPACE TELESCOPE SCIENCE INSTITUTE.
CEN rd Lecture CEN 4021 Software Engineering II Instructor: Masoud Sadjadi Phases of Software.
Certification and Accreditation CS Phase-1: Definition Atif Sultanuddin Raja Chawat Raja Chawat.
Accessing and Reporting State Student Achievement Data for GPRA Purposes Amy A. Germuth, Ph.D. Compass Consulting Group, LLC.
PACS IBDR 27/28 Feb 2002 IIDR Close-out1 Close-out of IIDR Recommendations A. Poglitsch.
1 SPSRB Decision Brief on Declaring a Product Operational Instructions / Guidance This template will be used by NESDIS personnel to recommend to the SPSRB.
Quality Activity Matrix Presented by Sandra Toalston President, SanSeek 1.
NMP EO-1 TECHNOLOGY WORKSHOP Section 2 Meeting Objectives.
CHECKPOINTS OF THE PROCESS Three sequences of project checkpoints are used to synchronize stakeholder expectations throughout the lifecycle: 1)Major milestones,
JPSS Common Ground System IDPS NPP Algorithm Operability Verification – Launch Build Characterization Tentative Agenda IDPS OAA 5/10/11.
Oral Exit Report Quality Assurance Review Team Grandview High School March 9-10, 2009.
COPC Meeting, May 27 – 28 th 2015 NDE Operational Status and PDA Update Prepared by: Chris Sisko, NDE Operational Status.
SSC SI Data Processing Pipeline Plans Tom Stephens USRA Information Systems Development Manager SSSC Meeting – Sept 29, 2009.
1 Validated Stage 1 Science Maturity Review for VIIRS Cloud Base, Nighttime Optical Properties and Cloud Cover Layers Products Andrew Heidinger September.
Configuration Management and Change Control Change is inevitable! So it has to be planned for and managed.
Diane E. Wickland NPP Program Scientist NPP Science: HQ Perspective on VIIRS May 18, 2011.
University of Minnesota Internal\External Sales “The Internal Sales Review Process” An Overview of What Happens During the Review.
IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency Methodology and Responsibilities for Periodic Safety Review for Research Reactors William Kennedy Research Reactor.
Decision Making Process Program Planning and Control Deana Hackfeld Management Systems Office November 17, 2006.
1 Chapter 12 Configuration management This chapter is extracted from Sommerville’s slides. Text book chapter 29 1.
Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) Common Ground System (CGS) Rapid Algorithm Updates Kerry Grant, JPSS CGS Chief Engineer Raytheon Intelligence and Information.
State of Georgia Release Management Training
MODIS SDST, STTG and SDDT MODIS Science Team Meeting (Land Discipline Breakout Session) July 13, 2004 Robert Wolfe Raytheon NASA GSFC Code 922.
Project Management Strategies Hidden in the CMMI Rick Hefner, Northrop Grumman CMMI Technology Conference & User Group November.
N A T I O N A L O C E A N I C A N D A T M O S P H E R I C A D M I N I S T R A T I O N NPP DATA ACCESS Mitch Goldberg JPSS Program Scientist June 21, 2012.
BSBPMG501A Manage Project Integrative Processes Manage Project Integrative Processes Project Integration Processes – Part 2 Diploma of Project Management.
Transition of Science Algorithms into Enterprise Product Generation Operations 2016 AMS Annual Meeting Dylan Powell, Ph.D. Lockheed Martin ESPDS Science.
JPSS Common Ground System Operational Algorithm Status – Launch Build Characterization Tentative Agenda IDPS OAA 4/5/11.
IS&T Project Reviews September 9, Project Review Overview Facilitative approach that actively engages a number of key project staff and senior IS&T.
Band 14 (11um) Winds Low-Level >700 mb Mid-Level mb High-Level mb   NPP VIIRS Polar Winds Products The GOES-R AWG Derived Motion Winds.
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Software Project Configuration Management
SNPP Regional Retransmission Service: Plans and Status of Implementation Presented to CGMS-43 Working Group 1 session, agenda item 6.
Software Configuration Management
Principal Investigator ESTCP Selection Meeting
Enterprise Algorithm Change Process
Flooding Walkdown Guidance
DOD’S PHASED SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Presentation transcript:

1 JPSS Engineering Review Board (ERB) Sea Surface Temperature (SST) Product Configuration Change Request (CCR) Evaluation 9 May 2014

2 Agenda ● Review of the CCR ● JPSS PSE Assessment –Methodology –Review of Assessment ● Recommendations ● Next Steps

3 SST CCR Evaluation Overview ● In August 2013, the JPSS Program Scientist submitted a Configuration Change Request (CCR) to JPSS Program Systems Engineering (PSE) recommending that the program Sea Surface Temperature (SST) product only be produced, validated and sustained within NDE. –The Program Scientist notes that the NOAA critical operational user community, namely the National Ocean Service (NOS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are currently using the NDE Advanced Clear-Sky Processor for Oceans (ACSPO) SST. NOAA users prefer the legacy ACSPO algorithm. No operational users for the IDPS SST product have been identified and research community users (identified through CLASS) have not indicated a preference for either product when questioned. –Potential cost savings may be obtained through suspension of calibration, validation and sustainment activities on the IDPS SST product. Reference the NJO CM Form_SST_final.docx

4 PSE Assessment: Methodology ● Generated an abbreviated trade analysis, working with experts and developers of both products, the user community and the JPSS Ground Project ● Evaluated15 distinct criteria, comparing both implementations only for the relevant category, culminating in a criteria-specific evaluation and a final recommendation –Cost Impact –Schedule Impact –Latency Impact –Attribute Performance –Legacy Continuity –Product Assurance/Risk –Validation Maturity –User Preference ● PSE understands this is not necessarily a comprehensive list and requests feedback, comments and discussion regarding this methodology –Product Interdependency –Transportability/Interoperability –Maintenance Impact –Evolution Potential –Direct Readout Support –Instrument Development Support –Data Availability

5 PSE Assessment: Summary Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx Evaluation CriteriaRecommendation Cost ImpactACSPO SST calibration, validation, sustainment and development costs less Schedule ImpactNone for either algorithm Latency ImpactIDPS SST has lower latency Attribute PerformanceBoth are expected to meet spec; ACSPO currently performing better Legacy ContinuityACSPO SST is legacy Product Assurance/RiskACSPO SST is assured to the level of confidence of current NOAA operations; IDPS SST is assured to NASA requirements Validation MaturityBoth products are at an acceptable validated status; ACSPO SST is operational within NDE User PreferenceNOAA users prefer ACSPO SST Product InterdependencyNone, though must confirm with IDPS Ocean Color team for certain Transportability/ InteroperabilityACSPO SST is more interoperable Maintenance ImpactsNo additional resources are required; funds would need to be reallocated to NDE for cal/val and maintenance Evolution PotentialACSPO SST offers evolution potential Direct Readout SupportNeither is supported for direct readout Instrument Development SupportNeither impacts instrument development Data AvailabilityBoth are available through NDE; only the IDPS SST is currently archived

6 PSE Assessment: Review ● Cost Impact The cost of singular SST algorithm calibration, validation and sustainment is approximately $11,000,000 in either implementation to support STAR work on SST. NJO will incur an additional cost for calibrating, validating and sustaining both implementations of the SST algorithms. However, as one team would support both algorithms, the cost of supporting both amounts to an additional 2 people on the cal/val team staff, totaling approximately $2,750,000 over the lifetime of the mission, a significant cost avoidance to the NJO program. Additional costs will be incurred as the IDPS code is changed, however. SST Cost Comparison spreadsheet. ● Schedule Impact No schedule impact is expected by executing the PSE recommendations for this CCR. If the CCR is executed, some impact to the schedule for delivery of the IDPS may be incurred due to code changes (as discussed in the product interdependency section). ● Latency Impact The IDPS implementation of SST is available at lower latency to the operational users based on PSE accounting of latency allocation; these numbers represent a maximum possible latency and true product delivery timing is expected to be less for both products. However, users have accepted both the aforementioned latencies as part of the JPSS Level 1 Requirements Document and understand the possible delay they face in obtaining only the ACSPO SST product. Non-operational users who will access the product through CLASS will see no impact. Based on previous user acceptance of the ACSPO SST latency, NJO will assume no risk in implementing this CCR. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

7 PSE Assessment: Review ● Attribute Performance Both algorithms are expected to meet threshold level 1 requirements, despite lack of funding for validation on ACSPO SST within NDE. There is slight risk to the JPSS program in executing PSE recommendation as there is currently no official plan to validate ACSPO SST explicitly, but this can be mitigated by funding the validation activities. NOTE: ACSPO SST attribute performance has not been officially evaluated by OSD at this time but Alexander Ignatov has provided statistics on algorithm performance for both implementations. ● Legacy Continuity Execution of the PSE recommendations for the CCR will provide NOAA legacy algorithm continuity through ACSPO SST; there is no risk to accepting the CCR. ● Product Assurance/Risk NJO will incur a slight risk associated with product assurance if the CCR recommendations from PSE are executed. The ACSPO SST algorithm has not been developed with NPR A rigor, but instead has been developed using current NOAA development procedure. PSE evaluates that this risk is small as the NOAA development procedure in actuality follows CMMI Level 3 and Class B/C rigor. This risk is small as NDE ACSPO SST product will be able to meet science performance standards developed under a CMMI level 3 compliant systems. Users of this legacy algorithm have accepted any risks associated with the CMMI level 3 development previously as ACSPO SST for AVHRR is the current NOAA operational product. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

8 PSE Assessment: Review ● Validation Maturity Execution of the CCR recommendations from PSE poses no risk to the program with validation maturity, assuming full funding for ACSPO SST cal/val is provided to STAR. ACSPO SST is currently operational within NDE. ● User Preference If NJO executes the CCR recommendations from PSE, the operational user community will maintain continuity of its legacy products, as requested. The non-operational communities within and external to NOAA will be unaffected as no users were identified for the IDPS-based SST algorithm; in the future, this community will be supported only by ACSPO SST data. If ACSPO SST becomes the sole implementation, there will be no discontinuity since amongst the operational and non-operational user community. There are no risks associated with the CCR execution to NOAA users, NASA or DoD or external personnel. ● Product Interdependency The IDPS-implemented SST algorithm maintains the Ocean Color EDR as part of its backscattering and absorption coefficient calculations. The Ocean Color EDR then flows to the Surface Albedo EDR, subsequently. However, changes to the Ocean Color algorithm have been made and can be swiftly implemented within IDPS to remove the SST dependency, thus alleviating any downstream interdependcy associated with SST. Therefore, execution of the CCR will not have any downstream repercussions if the recommendations above are implemented. Additionally, both algorithms can be used to help address and characterize any issues with the upstream VIIRS SDR. As the STAR team who leads cal/val and sustainment activities on both algorithms is the same, the communication between the SST and VIIRS SDR teams is already in place and will not depend on either implementation. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

9 PSE Assessment: Review ● Transportability/Interoperability ACSPO SST has demonstrated that it is both transportable and interoperable, posing no risk to the program if the CCR recommendations from PSE are executed. ● Maintenance Impact Both systems currently maintain their algorithms in the processes highlighted above, so execution of the CCR recommendations from PSE would reduce required DPA and Raytheon resources associated with the IDPS implemented SST product. ACSPO SST maintenance would not be impacted but does require funding as part of cal/val. ● Evolution Potential Currently only ACSPO SST offers and has demonstrated evolution potential, so there is no impact to evaluation potential. ● Direct Readout Support Neither algorithm is currently implemented within the DB product baseline and any support for SST algorithms via DB is done informally through usage of the VIIRS SDR. The JPSS Program Scientist queried the NOAA SST user community of their interest in a formal SST algorithm available from DB. They agreed on the importance of this and noted that the NOAA legacy algorithm, ACSPO SST, is their preferred DB implementation. A formal letter is being drafted and will be sent to the JPSS program echoing this response. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

10 PSE Assessment: Review ● Instrument Development Support There is no impact to instrument development support in executing the PSE recommendations in this CCR evaluation. ● Data Availability Both products are available to non-NOAA users operationally through ESPC and through CLASS for longer latency. The IDPS-implemented SST will continue to be archived until the ACSPO SST data are archived, ensuring that no gap in JPSS SST data will exist in the archive. If the CCR recommendations from PSE are executed, there program will incur no risk. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

11 Recommended Implementation ● Based on the 15 criteria evaluation, JPSS PSE recommends proceeding with the implementation of this change: –Provide sole product generation responsibility to NDE –Suspend all calibration, validation and development work on the SST algorithm within IDPS –Discontinue all IDPS SST product subscriptions –Discontinue future IDPS SST archival only when ACSPO SST products are archived (Fall 2013) ● In executing the CCR, NJO will save approximately $2.7 M through the program life cycle through suspension of SST calibration, validation and development activities within IDPS ● There will be no impact to the NOAA (and broader) user community since ACSPO SST products will be available operationally and through the NOAA archive. Reference SST-CCR-Evaluation_update may 2014.docx

12 Next Steps ● Assessment recommends the follow-on action items: 1.Confirm once more with the IDPS Ocean Color team that the IDPS SST product is not needed. 2.The JPSS ground team to evaluate what should be done with the SST code in IDPS and obtain a cost evaluation of potential alteratives. 3.Kathryn to provide costing information to the ERB members upon request. ● Recommendation of ERB to NJO Program Control Board: Concurrence with the SST CCR to reallocate sole production responsibility to the ACSPO SST algorithm within NDE

13 Backup

14 Documentation ● CCR submitted by Program Scientist –NJO COM Form_SST_final.docx –Reallocation of level 1 SST EDR to NDE docx –SST_ACSPO_IDPS_Comparison_v01.pptx ● JPSS PSE evaluation –SST-CCR-Evaulation_update may 2014.docx –SST cost comparison_final.xlsx (furnished upon request to Federal personnel)