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

1

Hydrology Program ExecutionAccountability 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

AHPSStatus and Plans

Fiscal YearThreshold

AHPS Locations

PlannedAHPS Locations

to Date(12/31/05)

ActualAHPS Locations

to Date(12/31/05)

Prior Years 717 717 717

2004 426 426 426

2005 233 233 254

2006 268 34 40

2007 309 - -

2008 308 - -

2009 316 - -

2010 316 - -

2011- 2014 1,118 - -

TOTAL 4,011 1,410 1,437

5

AHPSFY06 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?

River Forecast Center

Reported to Date

(9/30/05)

From Theme Team Base

Pending Corrections

Arkansas Basin 114 66 1 Alaska 13 7 -1 Colorado Basin 70 6 California/Nevada 46 0 Lower Mississippi 28 15 Middle Atlantic 151 0 Missouri Basin 126 23 25 North Central 339 0 26 Northeast 95 33 Northwest 66 69 Ohio Basin 252 0 17 Southeast 61 20 West Gulf 36 16 TOTAL 1397 255 68FY05 reported 1st Q FY06 13Total FY06 Target 268

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

OHD IT EVMS Graph for FY06

$3,500

$3,700

$3,900

$4,100

$4,300

$4,500

$4,700

Oct Nov 1st Qtr Dec J an Feb 2nd Qtr Mar Apr May 3rd Qtr J un J ul Aug 4th Qtr SepFiscal Year

Dol

lars

in $

K

Plannned Value (BCWS)

Earned Value (BCWP)

Actual Cost (ACWP)

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 PlanningTheme 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 ProcessTheme 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 PlanningFY06 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 PlanningTheme 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 ProposalQuestions

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

AWIPSProcess Reviews

Requirements Review * Design Review Code Review User Review * Test Review * GFS Handoff Readiness Review Integration Readiness Review

* Field Representative Approval Required

23

AWIPSField 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

Build Dev. Delivery Deploy

OB 6 Feb. 2006

OB 7.1 March 2006 Aug. 2006

OB 7.2 July 2006 Dec. 2006

OB 8.1 Nov. 2006 Apr. 2007

OB 8.2 March 2007 Aug. 2007

OB 8.3 July 2007 Dec. 2007

Note: SREC for OB8: now - April

25

AWIPSBuild 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

HOSIPSummary 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

HOSIPHIC 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

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

Jan

Mar

May Ju

lSep Nov Ja

nM

arM

ay Jul

Sep Nov

CALCULATING VARIANCESCALCULATING VARIANCESCALCULATING VARIANCESCALCULATING VARIANCES

Schedule Variance (EV-PV)Schedule Variance (EV-PV)$475K - $575K = -$100K$475K - $575K = -$100KSPI (EV/PV) = 0.826SPI (EV/PV) = 0.826

Cost Variance (EV-AC) Cost Variance (EV-AC) $475K - $665K = -$190K$475K - $665K = -$190KCPI (EV/AC) = 0.714CPI (EV/AC) = 0.714

AC = $665KAC = $665K

PV = $575KPV = $575K

EV = $475KEV = $475K

Actual Cost $665KActual Cost $665K

Planned Value $575KPlanned Value $575K

Earned Value $475KEarned Value $475K

30

FY06 Work Plan ProposalFY06 Work Plan ProposalInitial Work Plan Development ProcessInitial Work Plan Development Process

1. Draft Work Plans

Theme teams and HQ program area leaders

2. Integrate plansRecommend 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, adjustRevised budget allocation

APC7. 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