1 Hydrology Program Execution Accountability and Planning HIC Meeting January 25, 2006 NWSTC Kansas City, MO

2 Outline AHPS Status and Reporting Planning Discussion/Recommendation Topic Initial Project Prioritization Process AWIPS HOSIP Discussion/Recommendation Topic HIC interaction

3 AHPS Definition: AHPS Service Location A NWS River Forecast Service location will be considered an AHPS location when both of the following criteria are met: Observed and/or forecast information available graphically via the web Probabilistic forecast products delivered via the web or directly to customers Caveats: Closed gauges or sites that have otherwise cancelled service: Will not subtract the points - document Sites with probabilistic products but no observed or forecast hydrograph on the web. Two types of sites: Have observations but WFO hasn’t created the web page information and isn’t producing the hydrograph. Regions would ask the WFOs to set up the information to create AHPS pages for those sites. Document where no web page created. Only have observations occasionally (often no hydrograph). Same as above, WFOs should set up the web pages and appropriate notice about availability of hydrograph would be displayed. Other information would be available to users along with the probabilistic products. Sites with probabilistic products delivered directly to the customers Observations on the web. Put message under probabilistic tabs to direct customers to RFC for the products. No observations ever. These sites could still be counted as AHPS points and will be tracked. (should not be many)

4 AHPS Status and Plans Fiscal Year Threshold AHPS Locations Planned AHPS Locations to Date (12/31/05) Actual AHPS Locations to Date (12/31/05) Prior Years ,118-- TOTAL4,0111,4101,437

5 AHPS FY06 Status and Plans Will need updates on FY06 plans Target of 268 revised down from original 308 target Maintain FY06 target – revise FY07 plans to include extras Coordinate with HSD or HICs?

6 Reporting Metric for NOAA IT Programs - Earned Value Integrate three performance measures: Cost Schedule Work Accomplished Activities “earn value” as they are completed. The value earned is the budgeted cost of the activity completed to date.

7 AHPS Earned Value Activity tracked for AHPS: Number of locations implemented each month Track Cost Variance and Schedule Variance on monthly basis Purpose: Ensure program doesn’t get too far off track Guidance: Stay within +/- 10% of plan

8 AHPS Example

9 AHPS Earned Value Results If results >10% over plan – working more effeciently – budget could be cut If results >10% under plan – not performing as planned – may need to cut or stop program Lesson Good planning is needed Will work with HSD/HICs to improve plans

10 AHPS Planning Improvements for FY2007

11 AHPS Planning Theme Teams Goals of FY06 AHPS Planning Changes Provide more time for plan development Continue theme teams with revisions Reduce number of teams (some program area work plans to be developed by HQ staff for review) More time for teams More guidance Increased responsibility - output OSIP/HOSIP documents Develop initial plan, revise based on real budget, revisions if needed during year Simplify ARC review

12 FY06 AHPS Work Plan Process Theme Team Responsibilities Duties Review status of ongoing projects Identify potential new projects Develop initial HOSIP/OSIP documents – SON, NID, Concept of Operations, Business case information Develop deliverable, cost, schedule information Prioritize projects – deliver proposed work plan Resources Current projects planned to extend – HOSIP/OSIP documents Annual Guidance Memorandum AHPS Program Plan Input from technical representatives Team Charter User feedback (surveys and AHPS web page comments)

13 AHPS Planning FY06 Theme Teams Participants 33 Team Leaders/members 22 Technical Representatives Teams considered 106 projects 42 projects funded, 64 not funded 15 new projects

14 AHPS Planning Theme Team Feedback Received 10 surveys (~55 participants) Theme team leaders and members Technical representatives 2 months was enough time Some concerns about scheduling around shifts Good mix of people on teams Not enough cross referencing of projects Clarify process for submitting new proposals Identify projects mandated to continue

15 Alternatives for AHPS Prioritization Status quo (current theme teams ) One group reviews and prioritizes all projects Other??

16 Proposal: One-Group Review Problem: Dividing all projects up into separate teams for prioritization makes it difficult to evaluate projects between teams Proposed solution: Put together one group to review and prioritize all projects

17 One-Group Review Proposal (cont.) Group reviews list of current projects (status and proposal for upcoming year) Send project proposals to OHD for additions to the list Through series of conference calls the group goes through the list getting additional information on projects Each group member prioritizes the list Create consolidated prioritized list Additional call for final discussion and set the final list (to be sent to ARC, etc. for final review) Projects would then be funded in priority order until the money runs out for that period

18 One-Group Review Proposal Questions Who is in “the group”? What documentation needed for new projects? Can projects be partially funded to keep them going?

19 AWIPS Process Improvements

20 AWIPS Process Improvements Motivation: Feedback from Regions that SW needs to be better, and output more responsive to user needs. Process Changes: All development organizations required to document and get approval from field representatives for requirements, user interface changes, and testing Development Organizations can use their own internal processes or OSIP

21 AWIPS Process Improvements (cont.) Purpose: Improve the quality of software being delivered to the prime contractor and the field. It is NOT to create a slow moving bureaucracy, but to ensure developers coordinate with users prior to delivering software. Value: The field now has direct control over the progress of software development. The required reviews give the field control over the quality of the software they receive. Will be implementing over OB7 and OB8 cycles

22 AWIPS Process Reviews Requirements Review * Design Review Code Review User Review * Test Review * GFS Handoff Readiness Review Integration Readiness Review * Field Representative Approval Required

23 AWIPS Field Involvement HOSIP helps document early reviews for AWIPS (requirements) Need field involvement for later reviews and testing Required by AWIPS Will improve final software when a release is fielded Field involvement coordinated by developers Contact HSD when additional input needed?

24 AWIPS Schedule BuildDev. DeliveryDeploy OB 6Feb OB 7.1March 2006Aug OB 7.2July 2006Dec OB 8.1Nov. 2006Apr OB 8.2March 2007Aug OB 8.3July 2007Dec Note: SREC for OB8: now - April

25 AWIPS Build 8 SREC Candidates (Hydrology) OB8 DRs (new & existing) NWS Directives Changes (most likely RiverPro changes) Operating System & Other COTS Upgrades Integrated Warning Tool IWT Complete Integration of RFC QPE Tools into a Common National QPE System Continue Operational Implementation of Distributed Hydrologic Modeling (DHM) Replace SACSMA Frozen Ground Algorithm WHFS Site-Specific Hydrologic Prediction (SSHP) Model Enhance NWSRFS Streamflow Regulation Accounting Tools Re-Implement/Modernize the NWSRFS Interactive Calibration Program (ICP) Synchronize RFC Archive Database and IHFS Database Meta Data Continue Migrating WHFS HydroView Into D2D

26 HOSIP Summary Stage 1 Collection & Validation Stage 2 Concept Exploration & Definition Stage 3 Applied Research & Analysis Stage 4 Operational Development Stage 5 Deployment (AWIPS, Nexrad, etc.) Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Gate 4

27 HOSIP HIC Interactions Since November, all HICs invited to attend meetings for Gates 2, 3, 4 Experimental – to be reviewed at HIC meeting OHD has felt contributions from the DOHs and HICs has been very valuable Review Options Continue with all HICs invited to all calls Rotating representative HIC or HICs

28 Backup Slides

29 CALCULATING VARIANCES Schedule Variance (EV-PV) $475K - $575K = -$100K SPI (EV/PV) = Cost Variance (EV-AC) $475K - $665K = -$190K CPI (EV/AC) = AC = $665K PV = $575K EV = $475K Actual Cost $665K Planned Value $575K Earned Value $475K

30 FY06 Work Plan Proposal Initial Work Plan Development Process 1. Draft Work Plans Theme teams and HQ program area leaders 2. Integrate plans Recommend budget allocations APC 3. Recommend adjustments to budget allocations across all work plans and recommend priority changes within plans ARC 4. Establish budget allocations NHPM 5. Adjust plans based on Step 4 budget allocation Theme teams, etc. 6. Integrate, adjust Revised budget allocation APC 7. Review revised budget allocation, generate final appeals ARC 8. Establish work plans NHPM APC – AHPS Program Coordinator ARC – AHPS Review Committee NHPM – NOAA’s Hydrology Program Mgr