1. Network Information System Advisory Committee NISAC Review of the LNO ARRA Operational Plan Wade Sheldon & Will Pockman NISAC Co-Chairs

2. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 1. Approach to NIS development appears uni- directional and insular Lines of communication limited, prescribed Long development cycles with limited feedback Need much broader, bidirectional communication explicitly included in plan Need opportunities for outside collaboration Draft 2 response: More interaction planned than articulated – added more explicit communication tasks Development blocks composed of smaller steps where feedback will be sought Collaboration welcome, but must be timely (on track)

3. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 2. NIS development appears isolated from LTER science activities NIS not sufficiently user or science driven moving fwd No planned NIS interaction with LTER SC working gps Apparent lack of flexibility to respond to evolving needs Need to make SC, IMC groups aware of services, activities Draft 2 response: Added explicit plans for CIO to interact with groups More flexibility planned than described

4. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 3. The importance of standardization to facilitate network-level CI was not emphasized Diversity of LTER site data/systems/practices major barrier to synthesis No explicit support for standardization efforts Needs site-based funding, but must include “hooks” in Core CI activities and PASTA Draft 2 response: Added steps to include support for controlled vocabularies, other efforts Emphasized role of PASTA in standardization

5. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 4. Utility of Core CI, NIS for supporting LTER site operations was under-emphasized OP primarily focused outward Need to focus on service to sites to ensure buy-in, reward for participation Improved network databases, use cases for NIS to support site-based research needed Draft 2 response: Included more activities to support sites

6. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 5. Level of technical support and service to sites insufficient Only 0.3 FTE for helping sites support NIS protocols Site visits planned, but tech support should take precedence Help overcoming small barriers can lead to big payoff Draft 2 response: Additional, externally-funded FTEs also available Mixed messages from sites, EB on direct support Planning more group training, education to augment 1:1 support

7. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 1: Areas of Concern 6. Long software development timelines increase risk that products won’t meet needs Recent experience in LTER raises concerns Limited patience for protracted use case development Best feedback received when prototypes provided Need to identify major shifts/drifts early enough to have flexibility to make changes (not brittle) Alternative approaches should be considered where possible (Agile, RAD, simulations) Draft 2 response: Many shorter duration milestones implicit in plan Really need use cases to drive development RUP approach is flexible enough to accommodate

8. Network Information System Advisory Committee Draft 2 Discussion Many points addressed, clarified in Draft 2 OP largely on track, but serious process questions remain (some out of OP scope) Need corresponding site funding to succeed Community dynamics within LTER critical (need to move from sites + LNO to network) – may need experts “Tiger Team” model useful – NISAC/IM-Exec could be tasked with identifying collaborators, testers Formal communication plan should be considered In-reach to LTER committees, groups Education/training tailored to classes of users Briefing materials needed to engage more site PIs