1. OOI CI Release 2 LCO Review August 30, 2011

2. Contents Logistics and Protocol “The Situation” Charge Expectations

3. Logistics and Protocol All sessions will begin sharply at time indicated or announced (10 minute beak is not 15-20) Need to stay on Schedule Please turn cell phones off Process: – CI presents according to agenda – Board refrains from questions during presentations unless critical – Board has floor for questions following each presentation – Audience is permitted questions AFTER Board is satisfied and if time permits Can contact Bill Bergen if more questions

4. The Situation Our thoughts are with our colleagues that could not join us due to Irene Not our normal review – Remote participants- not desirable but will make due – Not all of Board can participate – Major, Major Milestone Not “check the box” review R1 PRR should precede R2 LCO – R1 requirements and use cases met/demonstrated R2 – all about the marine IOs – Need strong presence – Need concurrence – Need to be demonstrably integrated with CI

5. Review Board Charge (three big items) A.Are Release 2 LCO Review Entry Criteria Met? (convince Board should be here) B.Are Release 2 LCO Review Exit Criteria Satisfactorily Met? (convince Board that it is OK to leave) C.Provide Guidance to OOI leadership and CI in terms of: Findings, Recommendations and Suggestions

6. Are Release 2 LCO Review Entry Criteria Met? 1.Is Release 1 sufficiently mature to support R2 Inception Phase? a.Are IOC and PRR artifacts for R1 provided and adequate to support R2 Inception Phase? b.Most of this question should be answered by the Release 1 PRR 2.Are Release 2 LCO artifacts provided and adequate? Artifact SetContent ManagementSystem Life Cycle Plan Risk Register Elaboration Execution Plan RequirementsUse cases (mature) User workflows (candidate) System and subsystem requirements (candidate) DesignArchitecture Specification (candidate) Technology List (baselined) Prototype Reports ImplementationNone DeploymentNone

7. Are Release 2 LCO Review Exit Criteria Satisfactorily Met? 1.Are the use cases understood by the stakeholders, and do they provide a complete description of the release scope? 2.Are the core user workflows understood and agreed to by the stakeholders? 3.Are the candidate requirements understood by the stakeholders, and do they cover the critical use cases? 4.Are the critical risks identified, and have they been mitigated through exploratory prototypes? 5.Are the candidate architectures viable as demonstrated through analysis and prototyping? 6.Is the Elaboration phase plan credible? (are requirements, use cases, architecture and plans linked and traceable?)

8. Are Release 2 LCO Review Exit Criteria Satisfactorily Met? Additionally, the LCO panel will consider the following specific questions related to a successful Release 2 completion: Is this a viable User Interface strategy, team and approach? Have all of the applicable interfaces been identified? Have these interfaces been appropriately characterized for this stage? Have R1 interfaces been adequately proven to support L2 start?

9. Actions from R1 LCA Findings, Recommendations and Suggestions Were items satisfactorily addressed from Release 1 reviews, especially Release 1 LCA? – Some of the items could have a major impact on CI’s ability to proceed if they have not been addressed

10. Review Board Guidance to CI Delivered as both verbal out brief and written report Guidance categories to CI: – Findings, recommendations, suggestions Summary Conclusions will be one of these: 1.Proceed to R2 LCA 2.Proceed to R2 LCA with actions/liens and work off schedule 3.Delay R2 identified activities until key findings resolved May require delta LCO 4.Repeat LCO

11. LCO Board Summary Stay focused on topic Observe protocol We will persevere “We are here to help” Let’s go