LCO Debriefing, 2/26/10

Participants: Matthew, JohnO, JohnG, Susanne, Kelly, Michael, David, Joe, Bill, Michael, Arjuna, Frank, Tim

Agenda Items:
Need to accomplish:
Debrief on results of LCO
Immediate action items
Finalize IMS
final report close out of LCO
End of a mile stone - iterations of milestones
Elaboration planning, next steps, concrete objectives for LCA

Actions:
Bring Tim up to speed. John writes: and all the IOs
John brings to Management Team Monday plan for coming to closure next week (by Wed; Thu at latest): (a) Does subsystem move forward into LCA? (b) Does subsystem have remaining work associated with LCO? (c) If so, what is nature and quantity of value towards the goals of inception

For this to work John needs write-up of the impacts of decisions made in response to questions above.

Need by Friday, need for LCA new meaning of these plans of all the work to be successful at LCA. Given time constraints, make following Friday deadline for all the work against articulated deliverable for LCA. Objectives, deliverables against them, and work items.

Our plan is for Susanne and John to meet to initiate

Kelly's notes
Action items

Susan - Have gathering on best practices add other topics for the gathering that could be beneficial
Series of education for different parts of the team

Kelly - IMS (Master Spreadsheet) Update Kelly's responsibility to update on Matthew's and John's behalf

John G - Have discussions to take the value of work done to date and that will be completed and stated as not complete for R1 Mathew would like to know the result at the earliest date

John G - update Alan

Matthew and Kelly provide plan on how Terrestrial Cyber Plans come back on line

John G - Create a Task plan by Friday for to Matthew for the LCA
The new meaning of the plans and of all the work to be successful at LCA. Given the time

• Objective
• Deliverables
• Work items to achieve the deliverables
  John G and Kelly - Discussions of the model

John G - 1 - plan for what we need to do for function
2 - what we think we can achieve basked on staffing

Debrief Summary
John Orcutt:
Positive overall ('adequate' :->)
Jean seemed happy, Alan Blatecky interested in getting us with other programs (honest to god CI going on here), W Brown enthusiastic
Any followup on OSSE? consciously create that. Oscar's intent is to pursue opportunities to support the community involvement.
Better understanding about what we should deliver at LCA.
Moniker for OOI: We were adequate.
MM: Lot of value seen in yesterday's follow-on model discussion about OOI interfaces with Bill B, Robert H, Jack.
Enterprise Architect education value? (10 people, to bring everyone together). Worry is that it might turn into cut-and-paste instructions, or specific direction that isn't appropriate. Best practices gathering would be valuable. May be broader opportunity around training and best practices for different parts of the team. This is optimal point to pursue interfaces (first we need the architecture as a wider OOI team).
AI: Need number of licenses increased.

Continue this debrief on back end of meeting.

Where we are with regard to completion of inception tasks

MA: Two specific decisions:

1. Proceed with elaboration on per-subsystem basis, close out value on inception or leave them open?

two options for elaboration plan:
proceed with what we think is needed to keep on track for release
define what we can do with expected staffing

key question: what are the concrete objectives for lca?

QA/QC big issue for yesterday's meeting. (PI for each variable? Etc.) Takes concepts of data products to next phase.

what is the model for data products?

Matt wanted to put up IMS (integrated master schedule) - examine status
John and Michael have started quantifying the estimated progress towards objectives.

JG and MM opinion??: in certain work packages not quite ready to proceed to elaboration - this is in contrast to community perspective coming out of lco
4 subsystems under discussion (1 starting: instrument agents; terrestrial cyberpop behind, ma and kelly to provide plan for getting back on track; integrated observatory coming up next week)

• releases are staggered
• releases need to be completed in step for lca
• lco show community broader vision
• any one of the subsystems can get pushed out as much as a full spiral (from LCO up to LCA without pushing the subsequent release)
• some subsystems critical to some releases
• slipping some subsystems is possible
  required subsystems for R1
• COI, CEI, DM
• S&A not required for R1 objectives, could come out with a dot release (e.g., release 1.1) after official R1 release
  concerns: jg - amount of technical work, can't afford to get in habit of delaying work
  yes: MM, BP (as long as there is a good plan for S&A release), jc (s&a could be simulated for purposes of testing), FV, JO,
  JG: COI + DM, CEI not critical
  MM: CEI necessary architecturally.
  The subsystem developments will result in the Integrated Observatory network (ION), a configuration item, released by the release date. Implementation items in the same time frame that depend on the ION are terrestrial cyberpops and instrument/platform agents.

What are our options:

• Is it functionally possible to isolate parts of the system to push back
• When is it necessary to make a decoupling decision (now or after LCA)
• Is it politically possible to defer parts of the release

board gave approval for each of the 4 subsystems to proceed to elaboration - ooici & ol now need to decide how/whether to proceed on each subsystem

• question: what are viable options?
• dependencies of each of the subsystems on final release
  JG opines: "dependency of the final release on each of the subsystems"
  Unknown macro: {Alan, Tim joined via cell; Arjuna, Joe left}

  Options:
  1. COI, CEI, DM

• S&A not required for R1 objectives, could come out with a dot release (e.g., release 1.1) after official R1 release
  2. COI, DM
• SA, CEI not required (JG withdrawn)

• want consensus decision
• consensus meaning a decision that everyone can and will agree to support, not necessary to agree that this is best possible decision

ac: coi, dm critical, hate to see cei go out, s&a open
tim agrees to have his input deferred until he has more context - MA & JG will work bring him up to speed within the next few days (action item)

No dependency on S&A in release 1. Instrument Agents already slipped, discussions with CG already under way about May 2011 at-sea test.

• Does S&A have to be a point release before LCA of the following release

S&A is in the beginning stages of understanidng the sensors with whihc they are dealing
Progress has been made in developing a model

- there is high risk work that has not yet been done, the rest is not high risk

decision to make:

• does s&a go to elaboration
• lien? : do the prototype of high risk work
• design is not in place, new staff coming on board

role of review board is to provide stakeholder viewpoint and input; they are not the decision-making body

mm: two variants of the system

• core package
• applications package

bp: balance of unspent funds for s&a can be spent even if it is moved to elaboration (i.e., funds are not lost)

option to adjust scope of subsystem for r1

AI: Arjuna will contact John soon, and between Arjuna, Joe, and John, they will come back to Matt with a proposal for moving forward on S&A (whether it is under Elaboration, or a continuation of Inception).

Discussion of moving COI, CEI, and DM into elaboration and consequently taking credit for for Inception phase. What are the implications of 'taking credit', in all its contexts.

Each subsystem has to go through and identify items that are incomplete for lco and do not need to be done, or take a set of them and recharacterize them as residual activity that can claim value against LCA. (action item for all teams)

Matt will need to keep track of the second set of items in that paragraph separately as he tracks progress forward.

Many subsystems will take a huge leap in done-ness at the end of the reporting period, and we'll need to explain why.

Actions:
Bring Tim up to speed. John writes: and all the IOs
John brings to Management Team Monday plan for coming to closure next week (by Wed; Thu at latest): (a) Does subsystem move forward into LCA? (b) Does subsystem have remaining work associated with LCO? (c) If so, what is nature and quantity of value towards the goals of inception

For this to work John needs write-up of the impacts of decisions made in response to questions above.

Need by Friday, need for LCA new meaning of these plans of all the work to be successful at LCA. Given time constraints, make following Friday deadline for all the work against articulated deliverable for LCA. Objectives, deliverables against them, and work items.

Our plan is for Susanne and John to meet to initiate

Kelly's notes
Action items

Susan - Have gathering on best practices add other topics for the gathering that could be beneficial
Series of education for different parts of the team

Kelly - IMS (Master Spreadsheet) Update Kelly's responsibility to update on Matthew's and John's behalf

John G - Have discussions to take the value of work done to date and that will be completed and stated as not complete for R1 Mathew would like to know the result at the earliest date

John G - update Alan

Matthew and Kelly provide plan on how Terrestrial Cyber Plans come back on line

John G - Create a Task plan by Friday for to Matthew for the LCA
The new meaning of the plans and of all the work to be successful at LCA. Given the time

• Objective
• Deliverables
• Work items to achieve the deliverables
  John G and Kelly - Discussions of the model

John G - 1 - plan for what we need to do for function
2 - what we think we can achieve basked on staffing

People going to Wood hole - Matthew, John G, Bill P, Kelly
All represented other than the PI's

Need to accomplish:
Debrief on results of LOC
Immediate action items
Finalize IMS final report close out of ICO
End of a mile stone - iterations of milestones

Item #1
Substantial change in Operation capacity - op management team - Kelly

#2
Brief discussion LOC debrief
John O -was positive - adequate job encourage by it only 35 to go
Learn how to do it Gene seemed to be happy and the Alan from OCI was vey interest in getting together with us on other programs twice a year he was enthusiastic enough
Wendell was very enthusiastic
Frank - nothing to add at this point
OSSE consciously create a plan in future - better understand what we should deliver at LCA will happened after Woods hole meeting when Michael returns

Michael - no specific comments
Matthew - enterprise architecture (EA) education value - training to bring everyone up to the same bar - support bringing everyone together hesitant to the training it might hinder creative process
Matthew would like suggestion on how to proceeded - note cost of travel
"Training is not required"
John G - we have our own training on (EA)
Have gathering on best practices
Susan - add other topics for the gathering that could be beneficial
Series of education for different parts of the team
Matthew - 1st we need the architecture as a wider OOI team

@ Specific items
1 - where we are with regards to the completion of the exception tasks

Based on the make a decision on a per subsystem decision
Either close out the value or continue the exception tasks

IMS (Master Spreadsheet) Update Kelly's responsibility to update on Matthews and John's behalf

Understanding of where we are
Can be quantified with items of work in the detail plan what is getting done, what is cut and what we do believe we need to get done but not done
MA- it was Michael opinion that we did not complete release 1
LOC the community thinks we did need goals for Realease1
Per work package
4 subsystems we are talking about are required to be completed as Release 1
CIE
data management (DM)
COI
S&A - sensing and acquision

MA-To have release 1 complete do we need to have all 4 subsystems functionally competed? Are we ready to move forward? Is it an all or nothing? Board said we can proceed into elaboration. Ooici and OL now need to decide on/whether to proceed on each subsystem.

BP- what did the board miss
John G-S&A related components - he ability to put in a process or service that is able to transfer data is something that is characteristic as S&A
MA Can S&S come out as a DOT release?
Michael - not required, not necessary Politically not a good idea
JO - Prioritization - best to have S&A delivered on time

MA what is knowable? Want to understand what s everyone perspective regards to the dependence?
BP-need these 3 subsystems
Frame it out, don't see way we can't move it forward
Have to have COI and data management - political concerns - another activity that has to be built- Observation equipment
Frank - required systems are the 3 named COI, CEI and DM
John G - COI and DM
John O - COI and DM
MA- functional agree with Michael IS CEI a dependency - Proposal going to make if we couple them all to be release we need to push it out and do it now
ECR to allow S&A more time to mature or ECR to push everything out because we do not have a credible plan to complete
JG-LCA? - MA value and $ on the books associated with S&A that has not been recognized, preferred that we are transparent - when we know there is the potential for failure so people can understand how the process works - not proposal that we do not fit S&A in to release
JO-this a priority order- JG execution is not important
MA before we go onto relese2 we do not want to have dependence's
MM - functional necessary
Politically necessary
Need to make decision today
IS Monday and option? Give time to discuss? MA-milestone is next Friday in-terms of INS it has to be filled out next Friday - my plan was to have the decisions make today -
?? De-coupling make a lot of sense and gives us time
?? time to get contractors in line -
JG opines: "dependency of the final release on each of the subsystems"

Options:
COI, CEI and DM
S&A not required for R1 objectives-could come out with a .dot release

JG-S&A not required
MA-consensus vote - understand dissent when there is dissent, which represents risk
Susan - consensus - something everyone can agree on and move forward not
Alan - CIO and DM CEI required
S&A would not seriously affect things but we would have to work hard getting it caught up
Tim - no opinion, there are many parts of CI
Action Item - MA-What defines the earliest date we can ship R1
JG-decisions of taking the value of work done to date and that will be completed and stated
Tim - comfortable with us deferring your opinion? Yes
MA-JG and MA work with you over the next few days to get Tim up to date in the next few days -
JG-how we can S&A keep it in R1? Or are we focusing on functional implementations
MA-are we at a place the S&A could slip? Do we have contemplations on that?
MA-do we believe that S&A show up as a point release before R2?
ALL POINT RELEASE MUST HAPPEN BEFORE LCA? OUTTER BOUND
A major point release has a 4-month window or it has to push

No dependences of S&A from its functional dependences
The dependences is on at sea test (instrumentation and platform control accounts)
MA-we have deferred these decisions to get work done, we have not completely understood the points along the way. I am being more deliberate, seeing how much has been transferred. So we can work through these issues
JG-many aspects to S&A discussion that are in my mental model that needs to take days or weeks. Maybe the thing is to be economical-make the decision - I have concerns
BP-what's the engineering view
JG-beginning stage of understanding the sensors, on the table was the engineering model - 1st stage achieved - direct access achieved, but no actual completion of design or direct a
BP-requirement not understood
MM-goal for LCA takes are understood
Arjuna-risk is med to low
MM-very little parts that are High risk and not prototyped and documented.
MA-narrow decision today- whether to proceed with S&A or note today that it is in an insufficient position-not prepared and go through further integrations -
MM-go forward with leans? - Identifying leans -
1-high risks elements tat has not been prototyped
2-desing is not complete
Engineering voice 25% progress for LCO
Management teams responsibility to make the decisions on where we are at.
JG-late for LCA?
MA - how LCA play out? Are we going to present S&A at LCA? We may choose not to present it and will have to present it 8 or 16 weeks after.
MM-we need to be clear to what we present to LCA -
MA-assessment? Do we move S&A into elaboration or not?
BP-money is not going to go away over the year as long as you have a balance of unspent funds for S&A.
Leans - things people want to see done in the next phase-not a financial issue

Program mgrs -perspective - 2
1-if we believe we need to change the schedule we need to write LCR
at some point
risks taken on - the longer we hide the risks the greater the blow back
if we realize the opportunity to catch up we take it

BP-proceed to elaboration - and identify risk for S&A

Action Item -JG, Joe, Arjuna - propose to take the weekend to understand everything and comeback with a proposal on Monday

Action Item : JG Plan each subsystem relative to LCA by WED

Action ITEM
Nature of work and quantity of the value that work s represents

By Friday Task plan MA from JG needs the plan for LCA the new meaning of the plans of all the work to be successful LCA. Given the time

• Objective
• Deliverables
• Work items to achieve the deliverables

MA-decision complete COI,DM and CIE go into elaboration
In IMS - can we close these items for R1
If we clear the slate for LOC there is no going back.
The way the process is designed, all the work is about getting to LCA if they are having to do items to get to LCA they have different tasks

If in fact what you are building in inception is only to inform you what your objections are complete for LCO or take a set of them and re-characterize them as residual activity that can claim value against LCA.
Tasks that need to be identified that

Action Item:

BP-to take full credit for LOC all leans are complete
BP-notion of work that is absolutely LOC work
MA-each work package (subsystems) go through the work and identify items that are
Integration inventory network
Attached to the cyber pumps

• How releases are organized - staggered 16 months long 4 month over lap
  We need it to be completed - not between LOC and LCA
  (Should it be a simultaneous release - show where we are headed in the next year)
  the actual place a released should be headed is LCA - 4 on the contingency
  MA - view any of the subsystems that can be pushed out - other sub systems can go out the door after the fact -

2 behind - instrument and platform not going to happen by July
Terrestrial cyber pump - made some progress
MA - recommend it is KT_MA provide a plan on how that comes back on line

BP-needs to go back to OL - he's good.

John G - 1 plan for what we need to do for function
2- what we think we can achieve basked on staffing
Matthew agrees
John O -

John G - will update Alan on what he needs to know.

Discussions of the model (John and Kelly) to be follow up at a later time.