Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

December, 2009 Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "December, 2009 Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator."— Presentation transcript:

1 December, 2009 Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator

2  Allocation Stats  RAAR Report  MRAC/LRAC Cycles  Oversubscription  Allocation Submission Support (time permitting)  Processing  Interfaces

3  Dec. 2009 TRAC Meeting 48% Allocation/Requested 60% Allocation/Available 48% Allocation/Requested 60% Allocation/Available

4  Sept. 2009 TRAC Meeting 41% Allocation/Requested 112% Allocation/Available 41% Allocation/Requested 112% Allocation/Available

5  Startups:

6  Request and Allocation Trends

7

8 RAAR Report– (Recommended and Available Allocations Reconciliation)  Recommended Procedures for Handling Oversubscription  General Background  Recommendations  Solving the Legacy MRAC/LRAC Cycle Problems  Review Process / Reconciliation  Defined Process to Adjust Recommended Allocations for Oversubscription

9  REQUESTS = “Proposals” submitted by PIs  RECOMMENDED = Awards recommended by TRAC committee members based on merit review  AVAILABLE = Amount of time made available by the RPs for that allocation period  ALLOCATED = Awards actually made, based on TRAC recommendations and availability  (reconciliation = Resolves recommended available difference– includes resolution on individual systems. )

10  Allocation award totals have traditionally been 60-70% of the Request totals.  Sept. TRAC Meeting: Requests = 810M, Available = 300M. Ouch!  Large differences in Recommended and Available Allocations require a mechanism to reduce Recommended Allocations to accommodate the available SUs (remove potential oversubscription).

11  Legacy Large and “Medium” request cycles persist (MRAC/LRAC  quarterly and ½-yr cycles )  There is no simple way to normalize reductions across quarters (available and recommended allocations have to be reconciled at each meeting).  Request totals are difficult to predict. (From Oct. 2008 to July 2009 oscillations seemed to dampen.)

12  Eliminate MRAC/LRAC waves  90% of the Requests are “MRAC” size  10% of the Requests are “LRAC” size  Recommend: Pro-actively re-distribute LRAC-type requests  By extension (1 quarter) or by early renewal (1 quarter)  TG staff contact specific users and ask them to switch cycles

13  Keep Merit Review Process separate from Oversubscription adjustments  Let reviewers do what reviewers do best–> Provide Recommend Allocations based on merit:  Appropriateness of Methods  Efficient use of systems  Appropriateness of Computational Research Plan  Usage of previous allocations, publications  Allocations Officers “take care of” applying adjustments for oversubscription– a TeraGrid Problem

14  Reviewers are not apprised of Oversubscription during Review period. (Provides more consistent reviews of merit.)  Reviewers can use Funding to determine PI ability to manage and apply appropriate support to accomplish work in the Computational Research Plan. Reviewer should be blind to funding agency. (Encourages PIs to report ALL funding.)  For non-funded requests, science is reviewed by TRAC (no change from previous process)

15  Recommended Allocations – i.e. merit-reviewed demand - can be reported to NSF and the community.  Reconciling availability limitations is removed from merit review process – no double jeopardy.

16  NSF will no longer apply restrictions on requests with NIH funding.  Funding Categories are: NSF and non-NSF {NSF} and {NIH, DOE, DoD, Labs, Commercial}  Adjustments will be applied across all requests, by a “uniform” process to eliminate oversubscription.  NSF Funded Requests have “priority” when Recommended Allocations have to be adjusted for oversubscription.  Smaller requests are to be reduced less than large requests.

17  Factors for adjusting recommended allocations to availability  Across-the-board reductions (X factor, set by oversubscription)  Funding source (priority given to NSF-funded research, Y factor)  Size of award (priority given to small awards, Z Scaling Factor)

18 R =RNRN RORO + Fractional Parts of Recommended Allocation: 1*R = (F N + F O )*R = R N + R O Where F N + F O are the fractions of NSF and non-NSF Funding, and R=Recommended Allocation. (1 - X) * R x =RNRN RORO + (1 - X) * Recommended Alloc. Adjustment by (1-X) (no priority) Adjustment for non-NSF (Other) by Y. R xy =RNRN RORO + (1 - X) *(1- Y*X) * Adjust for size, linear scale. Allocated, A = R xyz = Size Scale * R xy 1 - R xy – R xy-min R xy-max Z * * R xy A=R xyz =

19

20  Plenary Session for “top 10” requests.  Parallel Sessions for Others  Two Sessions, A Chair for each session  Minimal Overlap (no need to attend both sessions)  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR  Awards entered into common spreadsheet  Google Doc  Private document, accessible only by invitation.  Considerable Time Savings

21  Parallel Sessions  Sept. 2009 TRAC Meeting  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC FOS Session  35 Requests; 105M SUs Requested  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR FOS Session  39 Requests; 105M SUs requested  Dec. 2009 TRAC Meeting  PHY/AST/ATM/CFD/ASC FOS Session  33 Requests; 102M SUs Requested  CHE/MCB/DMS/DMR FOS Session  38 Requests; 103M SUs requested PHY… CHE… CountSUs (M)CountSUs (M) Sept. 093510539105 Dec. 093310238102

22 * Required Forms POPS development team is always improving, and maintaining interface.

23  Recent improvements  Auto-fill  Supporting Grants and Co-PI Information is now automatically “refilled” on renewal requests (supplements and justifications, too).  Confirmation of auto-fill now required Update PI Information Add/remove CoPIs Add/remove new/expire grants Modify Supporting percentage

24  Document Upload improvements (in progress)  Single upload interface for all required docs  (Simple) Selection of Document type  Main Document, Progress Report, CV, co-PI CV, TG-related Publications, References,  Uses Submit button below entry form (no more confusion with “Save to Date”)  Upload date now appears in document list (no more confusion about revisions)

25  System Selection (in redesign phase)  Present entry form is cumbersome (must scroll through pages of entry form or use index at top)  Re-evaluate necessity of collected data  Redesign input fields (& include comma notation in numbers)

26  Answers:


Download ppt "December, 2009 Kent Milfeld, TG Allocations Coordinator."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google