ICG-WIGOS-1, Outcomes of the Breakout Groups, p. 1

CONOPS-2 WIGOS Functional architecture

For this area, what are the key principles or tenets that apply?

  • Understand the target audience.
  • Senior/executive observing systems managers in NMHS and counterparts in other agencies/co-sponsors – those that advise PRs and plan, manage etc national observation programs;
  • Management Groups of TCs and RAs
  • Understand the objectives of the document.
  • Describe the end state, with succinct statement of benefits.
  • Describe the high-level technical requirements.
  • Provide the basis for the Manual and the Implementation Plan.
  • The document must be readable, relevant, and as short as possible.
  • It has to be a document that TCs, RAs, Members, and sponsors can own. Engage them in a constructive way.
  • Graphics need to be understandable and communicate the message.
  • Address short-term goals that are achievable.

What existing mechanisms or activities exist should be built upon or leveraged? (Consider RAs, TCs EC-WGs, Secretariat, Programmes, etc)

  • Draw on meetings of TCs, RAs, etc. for feedback. Do they understand what WIGOS is trying to do?

Obtain “buy in” from TCs and others.

  • Subregional heads of met services meetings. Contact P-RAs for advice on relevant regional meetings.

What needed mechanisms or activities are missing?

  • Need to be engaging TCs and RAs on more than the concept – we need concrete understanding and input. We need to ensure it is embedded in the work plans of all the TCs and RAs.
  • Speed is of the essence – the CONOPS-2 provides the base for the Manual etc.
  • Meet with TCs and others sooner rather than later, e.g., need to ensure it is an active agenda item at upcoming joint President’s meeting.
  • Direct contact with the infrastructure groups – from WIGOS Office.

What, if any, are the urgent issues from a time to accomplish perspective?

  • ICG-WIGOS should ask each President to nominate a focal point (i.e. a real named person) to provide comments on the CONOPS; i.e., somebody who will own the CONOPS and who will respond with concrete comments – not just editorial comments but in a way that makes the TC concerns clear and helps us to help them.
  • Identify a small number of countries that can provide be explicitly invited to provide comments on the CONOPS.
  • Get immediate and concrete feedback. Ask TCs and RAs to report back to the joint Presidents meeting in Feb with written comments on how WIGOS is embedded in their plans and what are their WIGOS achievements to date?

For WIGOS to be considered implemented (4yr plan), what must be in place or accomplished and if not obvious, how is that success measured or determined?

  • Given that other documents depend on CONOPS, need to move promptly.
  • The CONOPS needs to be accepted by Congress in 2012 at least as a first draft, noting that it is a living plan and will return for further acceptance as it is refined. But the first EC version should have the right structure – shouldn’t keep changing that.
  • After this meeting, ICG report in one week and ICG members to submit further comments on CONOP by end October.
  • Next draft by mid November – to be sent to the named TC contacts (copied to ICG), to submit real considered comments by mid December.
  • Next draft ready for Joint Presidents meeting in time for Feb meeting, to be sent to P-RAs and P-TCs well in advance of meeting.

Identify those measures of success that are most critical or that failure to meet would prevent WIGOS Implementation as a whole from being considered accomplished.

  • Achieve all the goals for the document specified above
  • Identification and engagement of focal points
  • Do the PRs approve of this concept and process? They must understand the relevance of WIGOS. Are they committed to implementing WIGOS? Do they have tangible achievements?

Identify key milestones to achieve each measure of success and target dates for each milestone to the nearest calendar year quarter.

  • See milestones for CONOPS draft specified above.

For the continuing evolution of WIGOS (beyond 4 yrs) what key elements or mechanisms must be defined and in place to ensure an effective system?

  • Have plans in place to implement each step of the CONOPS. QMS, WIS etc
  • Excellent communications in every direction, with all stakeholders. The left hand knows what the right hand is doing.

How/who should manage those mechanisms?

  • This will come out of our planning process. We need the TCs and RAs to have sufficient ownership to initiate actions on their own.
  • WIGOS Project Office.

What other recommendations or Feedback do you have?

  • Agree with all comments made in plenary.
  • Figure 1 needs to be the end-state. It should map back to the WDIS description.
  • Need to address the science-operational interface. It should be a major heading in the document – so that other TCs and programs, as well as co-sponsors can see that science (both research and operational science) still matter. Need to address the role of research, not just operational, observations and products in WIGOS.
  • Figures:
  • Need to start with a really compelling figure describing the end state for WIGOS – both from a systems and process perspective. Not a before and after. Given the global end-state, what will be the end-state for a region and country? Figure 1.1 for global, Figure 1.2 for regional, Figure 1.3 for national.
  • Fig 1 is needed but it doesn’t work.
  • Fig 2 doesn’t work and doesn’t add value.
  • Fig 3 and 4 need to be integrated into one figure, that identifies the processes but also make clear what is WIS and what WIGOS is and what is both (or neither).
  • Improve Fig 5, as it may be too complicated and it may be too early in the doc.
  • Figures 6 and 7 can be deleted.
  • Fig 8 needs to be simplified. Lars Peter might have something better.
  • Fig 9 isn’t really about integration. It’s a management diagram. But do need to capture something tangible about integration – and all its aspects.
  • Fig 10 needs to be revised.
  • Fig 11 can be deleted, possibly replaced with something else.
  • Fig 12 isn’t an interoperability diagram, so we need something else. (Maybe just remove “interoperability” from the caption.)
  • Fig 13 can be deleted.
  • Fig 14 is needed.
  • Fig 15 is needed but needs to be clarified.
  • Fig 16 is not needed.

______

ICG-WIGOS-1, GENERAL SUMMARY, Annex to paragraph 3.2.5.4, p. 1

Metadata

For this area, what are the key principles or tenants that apply?

-understand and define the metadata tree, extensible, with mandatory and optional branches

-must look at issues from user point of view, consider user requirements

-make observations (also legally) defensible through adequate metadata

What existing mechanisms or activities exist that should be built upon or leveraged? (Consider RAs, TCs EC-WGs, Secretariat, Programmes, etc)

-activities by Members

-activities by WMO (Vol. A)

-examples of successful metadata implementation, best practices --> ESURFMAR, sensorXML, existing ISO standards, OGC

-in the longer term, look to other agencies for (evolving) user needs

What needed mechanisms or activities are missing?

-an exchange mechanism for expertise from the user perspective --> create ad-hoc TT, later to be turned into IPET to define the needs; define ToRs

-a common understanding of how the tree should be realized on a technical level; consider the example ESURFMAR

-define mandatory parts of the tree

-agreement on quality standards and ‘quality labels’

-need to distinguish concept of data ‘quality’ (i.e. to what extent is the traceability chain implemented and documented) and ‘classification’ (characterization of the representativeness of an observation)

-multi-lingual metadata representations so that metadata are useful

What, if any, are the urgent issues from a time to accomplish perspective?

-draft ToRs for ad-hoc TT

-identify members with technical expertise to serve in this TT

-collect user requirements, i.e., from different interests groups /stakeholders

-begin to develop the metadata tree; beginning with expansion of Vol. A

For WIGOS to be considered implemented (4yr plan), what must be in place or accomplished and if not obvious, how is that success measured or determined?

-metadata model defined, including distinction between mandatory and optional (Appendix to WIGOS Manual)

-technical implementation approach agreed on and under realization

-information on existing metadata implementations by Members publicized

-pre-operational realization from at least one Members in each RA in place

Identify those measures of success that are most critical or that failure to meet would prevent WIGOS Implementation as a whole from being considered accomplished.

-resources mobilized, both from Members (e.g., trust fund or direct) and WIGOS budget

-metadata model defined, including distinction between mandatory and optional (Appendix to WIGOS Manual)

Identify key milestones to achieve each measure of success and target dates for each milestone to the nearest calendar year quarter.

------

For the continuing evolution of WIGOS (beyond 4 yrs) what key elements or mechanisms must be defined and in place to ensure an effective system?

-Ongoing maintenance and development processes

-Outreach to ensure adoption for all observing systems

-In the long term – additional (user-centric) levels to allow applications to make more effective use of WIGOS metadata

How/who should manage those mechanisms?

-IPET-WIGOS MD

What other recommendations or Feedback do you have?

-Need to have clear guidance on

  • What it is appropriate to use observations for (“classification”)
  • Quality of observations (a standard, simple summary, such as Level 1 to Level 5, or “copper, bronze, silver, gold, platinum”) for use in WIS metadata quality

______

ICG-WIGOS-1, Outcomes of the Breakout Groups, p. 1

Manual on WIGOS

For this area, what are the key principles or tenets that apply?

  • Build on existing mechanisms – Manuals or documentation on component systems, e.g. on GOS, GAW (needs to be updated), etc – include these as “chapters” - do not duplicate information (some rework may be needed for consistency or to avoid duplication). Need to review the Tech Reg. 9 and update where needed. Shall=Manual, should=Guide. Other manuals to include to be identified. Aim for Manual on WIGOS and Guide on WIGOS – to include all information, structured in chapters for each component. Design for search within the document to simplify direct access to relevant regulatory materials (e.g. work that Timo is doing with CIMO). The document itself must be discoverable.
  • Voluntary programmes (e.g. GAW) do not currently have Manuals and are referred to from the regulations by a different mechanism. However, to be considered part of WIGOS the providers of information have to sign up to the Regulations relevant to the observing system – we will need to find terminology that allows the “regulations” to be harmonized.
  • Component systems – GCOS, GAW, WIGOS etc contain space based components – space is not wholly in GOS (text to be edited to reflect this).

What existing mechanisms or activities exist that should be built upon or leveraged? (Consider RAs, TCs EC-WGs, Secretariat, Programmes, etc)

  • Expert Teams in each Commission/Programme retain responsibility for maintaining observing systems – Global Cryosphere Watch will need strengthening and building new material.
  • Manual needs to tackle approach to regional differences and practices

What needed mechanisms or activities are missing?

  • Cross-system co-ordination: task team to pull together documentation and practices across contributing systems, and the manual structure to support this.
  • ICSC is theoretical mechanism to co-ordinate co-sponsored systems; need mechanisms to notify partners of changes to systems we maintain; need method for reciprocal notification and to see whether we can move to common system for maintaining and documenting standards.

What, if any, are the urgent issues from a time to accomplish perspective?

  • Making Members aware of work that is being done on Manual on WIGOS.
  • Early engagement of stakeholders
  • Availability of WIGOS Portal with editorial board & status reports
  • Mechanism to engage user community in development and use of the Manual.
  • Make more use of the Operational Newsletter (e.g. to publicise CIMO site standards)
  • Need to clarify differences between management of surface and space based components (because space based designed to meet many other requirements as well).
  • Mechanism to integrate research data into operational systems? Differentiate between “stable” R&D and those components that are more transient and themselves subject to research & development.
  • Create process for maintaining manual on WIGOS.

For WIGOS to be considered implemented (4yr plan), what must be in place or accomplished and if not obvious, how is that success measured or determined?

  • Create the Manual that is approved by Congress XVII
  • Define what “operational” means in terms of WIGOS components (e.g. absence or loss would result in significant impact on services to end user).
  • Must, in success measure, include >= aspect (e.g. research relationships, integration of satellites) that is not present in 2011 and that will enable additional useful services to be delivered or quality of existing services to be improved.
  • Include handling “third party” data – where we have no real control (or even knowledge) over quality, but we want to know how to handle the data. For this purpose “third party” is an organization that is outside the WMO or NMHS community that does not formally agree to the requirements of the Manual but that is prepared to make information available to WIGOS (or something like that)

Identify those measures of success that are most critical or that failure to meet would prevent WIGOS Implementation as a whole from being considered accomplished.

---

Identify key milestones to achieve each measure of success and target dates for each milestone to the nearest calendar year quarter.

  • CIMO guide to be updated and “binding” parts should go into WIGOS manual. Same approach to be used for all components.

For the continuing evolution of WIGOS (beyond 4 yrs) what key elements or mechanisms must be defined and in place to ensure an effective system?

  • Mechanism for managing the Manual, updating it etc
  • Outreach to educate communities on the use of the Manual (recognizing that different communities need a different perspective).
  • Controlled mechanism for updating and changing Manual and practices – “release cycles” to avoid “has anything changed today?” E.g. CBS Fast Track procedure. 4 year cycle is too slow.

How/who should manage those mechanisms?

  • Each component system (remote, space, in situ), the parent Programme should have identified mechanism – the Programme with primary responsibility takes lead.
  • What is the co-ordinating mechanism when ICG-WIS goes? E.g. Inter-Programme Expert Team.

What other recommendations or Feedback do you have?

______

ICG-WIGOS-1, Outcomes of the Breakout Groups, p. 1

Communications and Outreach & CapacityBuilding

For this area, what are the key principles or tenets that apply?

  • Communications system that works – is timely, useful, easily understood,
  • Get message to key stakeholders – PRs, TCs, RAs, Expert Groups, co-sponsors
  • inform on progress, problems
  • inform PRs especially on benefits, efficiencies, opportunities
  • Understand audiences – both in and outside WMO – IOC/GOOS, FAO etc, and how to engage and involve them
  • GFCS communities as well – emphasise working together
  • Make sure GEOSS understands what WIGOS is – contribution not competition
  • Easily reachable, feedback, get to all stakeholders
  • Help PRs communicate with other national organisations who have observing responsibilities (e.g. hydro, climate, GAW), to get them on board – give them material to help, presentations, brochures etc that are targeted
  • Would also assist them in informing their political masters and access resources
  • Should be lead by Project Office – one authoritative voice
  • Important to mobilize voluntary resources from Members to work in Project Office – need to understand value to them.

What existing mechanisms or activities exist that should be built upon or leveraged? (Consider RAs, TCs EC-WGs, Secretariat, Programmes, etc)

  • Brochures, internet, meetings etc
  • COP/UNFCCC fora, GEO meetings, other UN assemblies – use every opportunity
  • WMO focal point networks
  • National meetings e.g. World Met Day celebrations, to raise profile of WIGOS
  • Push up a level, get GFCS, WIGOS challenges on politicians’ radar
  • Use material and communications from SG

What needed mechanisms or activities are missing?

  • Translate message from global WIGOS level to what it actually means at a national level
  • Compile some presentations that can be used by others, make them as professional as possible
  • Draw together material that others have developed e.g. Demo Project posters, presentations and use them
  • Social media – how to be present in this new world; create communities, that allow push and receipt of information, queries, etc – must be responsive and feedback
  • Provide information on costs and tangible benefits associated with WIGOS – relate new activities to existing commitments and to real service improvements
  • Use professional media such as Discovery Channel – put Ivan in charge of sales and marketing
  • Start doing WIGOS and demonstrate the achievements
  • Demonstrate how developing countries and LDCs can get access to the benefits of WIGOS
  • Highlight integrated products and how they can be accessed and used
  • Start changing the business model and demonstrate the value to Members of getting on board
  • AMMA, SWFDP etc – build on them
  • Situational analysis – what is relevant or needed in each country, what are priorities, what are benefits of WIGOS,
  • Cannot just impose new systems, requirements
  • Many LDCs have much bigger national problems than observations – need to be able to show how WIGOS will help their national situation
  • High level package of information for co-sponsors, GEOSS etc
  • WIGOS presentation and information for other TCs and their Secretariat support – tailored to the interests and needs of that TC community
  • Make communications and outreach part of ToRs for joint WGs, regional and national focal points
  • Present WIGOS as an investment, not an expenditure – important!
  • Focus on the information WIGOS delivers, not the observations
  • Pilot projects and demonstrations to demonstrate the value of WIGOS

What, if any, are the urgent issues from a time to accomplish perspective?